1 2025:CGHC:2565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 163 of 2025 1 - Neetu Kothari D/o Devkishen Kothari Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No.-9, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Election Commission Nirvachan Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Election Officer And Collector Bemetara District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap and Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocates For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. R.N. Marhas, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/01/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner, who is resident of Ward No. 9, District Bemetara (C.G.) and presently continuing as elected Councilor of the said ward, preferred the instant writ RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.16 19:26:00 +0530 2 petition questioning the reservation of the post of President for OBC category in Bemetara Municipality for the upcoming local self government election year 2025. 2. (i) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the post of President of the Bemetara Municipality has been reserved for OBC category by the impugned notification despite the established rotation principle which mandates that it should be assigned or reserved for general category. He further submits that the reservation has been made in violation of the Rule prescribed in “Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika (Mahapaur tatha Adhyakash ke Padh ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Niyam, 1999’). (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the respondents has failed to adopt rotation principle for the post of President in Bemetara Municipality as they had done for the Councilor seats. He also submits that the respondents have not followed the same principles for the posts of President as well as councilor and because of non-following the rule, the same amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, lastly, submits that earlier in the year 2004, the post of President was reserved for Unreserved Women (General); in the year 2009- reserved for Unreserved (General); in the year 2014- reserved for other 3 Backward Classes (OBC); and in the year 2019- reserved for Women (General). However, in the year 2024, the respondents have reserved the post for OBC category, which is clear violation of established rotation system. Reliance has been placed in the matter of The State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, AIR ONLINE 2021 SC 166 in support of the above submission. 3. (a) Per Contra, learned counsel appearing, on advance copy, for the State, on instructions, would submit by showing the chart and procedure adopted at the time of reservation of seats that the reservation has been made by the respondent authority after following the procedure prescribed under the Niyam 1999. He would further submits that in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 2 (d) of the Niyam, 1999, the Director, Urban Administration and Development has been appointed as Prescribed Authority. (b) He submits that the proceeding for reservation, as per the Niyam, 1999, was held on 07/01/2025 at Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Auditorium, Science College Premises, Raipur at 11:30 am in the presence of general public. First of all, information regarding the provisions in respect of reservation of the categories to be reserved under the provisions of the above Niyam, 1999 was given to general public and in compliance of Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999, it was informed that the same process of reservation will be adopted for the purpose of subsequent reservation, which 4 is described in Rule 5, but the reservation to be done by lot will be done in a cyclic manner and for this purpose the names of those municipalities whose posts have been reserved for a category will not be included in the lot for reservation of that category until such municipality comes again in the order of reservation. Information was also given regarding clarification of the said Rule 6. As per Rule 3 of the above rules, for the purpose of reservation of posts of Chairperson of Municipal Councils, the reservation is to be made by considering the municipalities as one unit. (c) He next would submit that presently, there are 54 Municipalities in the State and as per the census of the 2011, the total population of the Municipalities in the State is 1339868. Out of which, the population of schedule Caste is 191372 and schedule Tribe is 157308 and as such there are 14.28% of SC and 11.74 of ST population are therein in all the Municipalities. Hence, out of 54 Municipalities, by applying the said percentage, 8 posts for SC category and 06 posts for ST category are reserved, respectively. For reference of this Court, a chart prepared by the Respondent shows as under:- Municipalities Total Population Population of schedule caste Population of schedule tribe 54 1339868 191372 157308 Percent 14.28% 11.74% Post number 7.71 6.33 In round number posts 08 06 He further placed a chart showing the reservation to be 5 followed on the basis of reservation for reservation category. Sr. No. Reservation for category Total number Women 1. For Schedule Caste 08 03 2. For Schedule Tribe 06 02 3 For OBC 13 04 4 Unreserved 27 09 Total 54 18 (d) Referring to the above charts, he next submits that as per the population of Municipalities in descending order, 8 posts from Nagar Panchayat- Pandariya, Nagar Panchayat- Amanpur, Nagar Panchayat- Mandir Hasodh, Nagar Panchayat- Baghbahara, Nagar Panchayat- Sarangarh, Nagar Panchayat- Dongargarh, Nagar Panchayat- Janjgir- Naila and Nagar Panchayat- Akaltara have been reserved for Schedule Caste, whereas, 06 posts for Schedule tribe were reserved for Nagar Panchayat- Naryanpur, Nagar Panchayat- Bijapur, Nagar Panchayat- Jashpur, Nagar Panchyat- Balrampur, Nagar Panchayat- Dantewada and Nagar Panchayat- Sukma. He would next submits that out of total 54 Municipalities, 14 posts reserved for SC and ST category and remaining 13 posts (27.50% of total 54 Municipalities) were reserved for OBC category. He submits that for the remaining 13 posts of OBC category of Municipalities by applying Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999, the posts were reserved for OBC category. For reference of this Court, Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999 has been submitted as under:- “6. Procedure for subsequent reservation.--For the purpose of every subsequent reservation, the same 6 procedure of reservation as laid down in rule 5 shall be followed but the reservation made by lot shall be made in a rotational manner and for this purpose the names of municipalities in which seats have been reserved for a category shall not be included in the lot for reservation of that category until such municipality again comes in the order of reservation.” (e) He further submits that in the year 2004, Nagar Panchayat(s)- Kumari, Jamul, Krindul, Balod, Sakti and Kharsiya was reserved for OBC. In the year 2009 after exclusion of the above 6 municipalities, lots were prepared for other Municipalities and again in the year 2009 by applying the process of lots, Nagar Panchayat(s)- Manendragadh, Tilda-Nevra, Champa, Kanker, Gobaranavapara and Shivpur Charcha (2010) kept reserved for OBC category. Again after exclusion of above 12 Municipalities reserved for 2004 and 2009, in the year 2014, lots were prepared and Nagar Panchayat (s)- Balodabazaar, Mahasamund, Bemetara, Dallirajhara, Kawardha, Surajpur, Baikunthpur, Gariyaband, Sukuma and Kathghora were reserved for OBC category, and again in the year 2019 after exclusion of the above municipalities reserved in the year 2004, 2009 and 2014, lots system was applied and on that basis Nagar Panchayat(s)- Bade Bacheli, Kondagaon, Kheragarh, Aarangh, Takhatpur, Bhatapara, Deepka, Shivpurcharcha, Saraipali, Mungeli and Ahivara were kept reserved for OBC categories. For ready reference, a chart has been produced as under:- 7 S. No. Year Name of Municipalities Number of Municipalities 1 2004 Kumari, Jamul, Krindul, Balod, Sakti and Kharsiya 06 2 2009 Manendragadh, Tilda- Nevra, Champa, Kanker, Gobaranavapara and Shivpur Charcha (2010) 06 3. 2014 Balodabazaar, Mahasamund, Bemetara, Dallirajhara, Kawardha, Surajpur, Baikunthpur, Gariyaband, Sukuma and Kathghora 10 4. 2019 Bade Bacheli, Kondagaon, Kheragarh, Aarangh, Takhatpur, Bhatapara, Deepka, Shivpurcharcha, Saraipali, Mungeli and Ahivara 11 (f) He further submits that out of the aforesaid 31 Municipalities, all the municipalities have been reserved once for OBC category. Hence, by applying the provisions of Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999 for subsequent reservation procedure, all the Municipalities were put into the lottery process and on the basis of the same by draw of lot, 13 Municipalities are reserved for OBC for the year 2025 including Bemetara Municipality. Thus, from the clear facts as mentioned above, there is no illegality in the process adopted by the respondents in keeping the Bemetara reserved for OBC category. (g) Lastly, he submits that the petitioner who is referring the 8 guidelines/communication of Urban Administration Department made to Collector for keeping reservation of the ward by which he was stating the procedure enumerated in paragraph 10 i.e. “In case of reservation of wards in urban bodies in the year 2024, during reservation of wards on a rotation basis, the reservations made in the years 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019 shall be considered as the basis for the rotation method” is the same procedure mentioned in Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999 and there is no action to discriminate the manner made by the respondent authority by keeping the reservation of Municipalities. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record placed before this Court and the procedure explained by the respondent/State. 5. A chart/brief prepared by the respondents for reservation to the post of President, Municipal Council Year 2025 has been placed before the Court during the course of hearing, is taken on record. From perusal of the above, it is very clear that as in the year 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019, all the Municipalities have been once reserved for OBC category by applying the provisions of Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999. The subsequent reservation procedure applied and by excluding 8 posts of SC category and 06 posts of ST category, rest 40 Municipalities were put into lottery process and by drawing of lot from the said Municipalities, the reservation of 9 Municipality including Bemetara for OBC category has been made for the year 2025. From the procedure adopted by the respondent authority, it is apparent that, there is no illegality and no different yardstick has been applied in respect of Bemetara Municipality. The respondents have applied prescribed rule as enumerated in the Niyam, 1999 properly and there is no discrimination in any manner. 6. It appears from the facts narrated by the respondents/state that there is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge the reservation of Bemetara for OBC category and there is no illegality in the procedure. It is also quite vivid that while adopting the reservation policy the authorities have followed the due process of law as also as per the provisions enumerated under the Niyam, 1999. 7. The proceeding for reservation, as per the Niyam, 1999, was held on 07/01/2025 at Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Auditorium, Science College Premises, Raipur at 11:30 am in the presence of general public wherein the information regarding the provisions in respect of reservation of the categories to be reserved under the provisions of the above Niyam, 1999 was given to general public and in compliance with Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999, it was informed that the same process of reservation will be adopted for the purpose of subsequent reservation, which is described in Rule 5. Information was also given regarding clarification of the said Rule 10 6. As per Rule 3 of the above rules, for the purpose of reservation of posts of Chairperson of Municipal Councils, the reservation is to be made by considering the municipalities as one unit. The reservation has been adopted as per the population assessed in the last census 2011. 8. By applying the provisions of Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999 for subsequent reservation procedure, all the 40 Municipalities were put into the lottery process and on the basis of the same, 13 Municipalities are reserved for OBC for the year 2025. From the said facts, it is evident that there is no illegality in the process adopted by the respondents in keeping Bemetara reserved for OBC category. 9. As far as the contention of the petitioner that Clause 10 of the guidelines/communication dated 12/12/2024 of Urban Administration Department made to Collector amounts to discrimination as different yardstick has been applied for reservation of Bemetara Municipality is concerned, clause-10 which has been referred by the petitioner which are meant for Ward i.e. “In case of reservation of wards in urban bodies in the year 2024, during reservation of wards on a rotation basis, the reservations made in the years 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019 shall be considered as the basis for the rotation method” is the same procedure mentioned in Rule 6 of the Niyam, 1999 and there is no discrimination in the procedure 11 adopted by the respondent authority by keeping the reservation of Bemetara Municipality. 10. For the reasons discussed herein above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the the reservation of the post of President for OBC category in Bemetara Municipality for the upcoming local self government election year 2025. 11. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul/ Gowri