# SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2021] 11 S.C.R. 640
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5060 of 2021
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sanjay-ramdas-patil-v-sanjay-and-others-34769
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Municipal Corporations:
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Offices
of Mayors) Rules, 2006 - r. 3(2) - Constitution of India - Art. 243T
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - s. 19A -
Reservation of offices for the election of Mayor - Issuance of
Notification whereby Office of Mayor in Dhule Municipal
Corporation for the term commencing from June, 2021 reserved
for Backward Class category - Writ petition by respondent no.1
challenging the said Notification and sought direction to reserve
the post of Mayor of the said Corporation for the next term for
Scheduled Caste category - Notification set aside by the High Court
holding that since already on two earlier occasions, the Office of
Mayor of the said Corporation was reserved for Backward Class,
coupled with the fact that there has been no reservation for the
Scheduled Caste category, amounted to violation of rotation policy
- On appeal, held: Rules of 2006 are mechanism for giving effect
to the constitutional mandate u/Art. 243T of providing reservation
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the enabling
provision for providing reservation for Backward Class of Citizens
in proportion to their population - Combined reading of the said
Rules along with the Art. 243T and s. 19(1A) would not permit the
interpretation as placed by the High Court - Taking into
consideration the fact that the number of seats reserved for
Scheduled Castes are 3 whereas for Backward Class are 7 i.e. more
than twice, it is quite probable that the post of Mayor could be
reserved for two earlier terms for Backward Class and whereas no
reservation is provided for Scheduled Castes - Dominant purpose
and the legislative intent of r. 3 is to provide reservation in proportion
of the population of such categories in the Municipal areas and
also to ensure that while all the eligible Corporations get reservation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
at some point of time for the different categories, at the same time
there would be no repetition of reservation until the rotation is
complete - Legislative intent is to exclude the Corporations which
were earlier reserved for a particular category until all the
categories are provided reservation - However, while doing so, the
Court will have to interpret r. 3 in such a manner that this scheme is
made workable and not frustrated.
Interpretation of statutes: Cardinal principle of construction
of a statute - Held: Duty of the Court is to construe the Statute as a
whole - One provision of the Act is to be construed with reference
to other provisions so as to make a consistent enactment of the
whole Statute - Provisions which appear to be in conflict with each
other are to be constructed so as to harmonise them - While
interpreting a particular statutory provision, it should not result
into making the other provision a "dead letter" - Furthermore, the
court needs to ascertain the intention of the law-making authority
in the backdrop of dominant purpose and the intendment of the
Statute - Court will have to prefer an interpretation which makes
the Statute workable and gives effect to the intention of the
legislature than the one which defeats the purpose of the enactment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949 provides for election of Mayor and
Deputy Mayor from amongst the Councillors in the Corporation.
Sub-section (1A) of Section 19 of the Act provides that there
shall be reservation for the office of the Mayor in the Corporation,
by rotation, for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
Women and the Backward Class of Citizens, in the prescribed
manner. [Paras 13, 14][652-E, G-H]
1.2 Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations (Reservation of Offices of Mayors) Rules, 2006
provides that the Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify the number of offices of Mayors in the Municipal
Corporations in the State to be reserved for the Scheduled

## Text

_Characters 0–39,316 of 71,698. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39316 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 640
640
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL
v.
SANJAY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5060 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Municipal Corporations:
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation of Offices
of Mayors) Rules, 2006 - r. 3(2) - Constitution of India - Art. 243T
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 - s. 19A -
Reservation of offices for the election of Mayor - Issuance of
Notification whereby Office of Mayor in Dhule Municipal
Corporation for the term commencing from June, 2021 reserved
for Backward Class category - Writ petition by respondent no.1
challenging the said Notification and sought direction to reserve
the post of Mayor of the said Corporation for the next term for
Scheduled Caste category - Notification set aside by the High Court
holding that since already on two earlier occasions, the Office of
Mayor of the said Corporation was reserved for Backward Class,
coupled with the fact that there has been no reservation for the
Scheduled Caste category, amounted to violation of rotation policy
- On appeal, held: Rules of 2006 are mechanism for giving effect
to the constitutional mandate u/Art. 243T of providing reservation
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the enabling
provision for providing reservation for Backward Class of Citizens
in proportion to their population - Combined reading of the said
Rules along with the Art. 243T and s. 19(1A) would not permit the
interpretation as placed by the High Court - Taking into
consideration the fact that the number of seats reserved for
Scheduled Castes are 3 whereas for Backward Class are 7 i.e. more
than twice, it is quite probable that the post of Mayor could be
reserved for two earlier terms for Backward Class and whereas no
reservation is provided for Scheduled Castes - Dominant purpose
and the legislative intent of r. 3 is to provide reservation in proportion
of the population of such categories in the Municipal areas and
also to ensure that while all the eligible Corporations get reservation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
641
at some point of time for the different categories, at the same time
there would be no repetition of reservation until the rotation is
complete - Legislative intent is to exclude the Corporations which
were earlier reserved for a particular category until all the
categories are provided reservation - However, while doing so, the
Court will have to interpret r. 3 in such a manner that this scheme is
made workable and not frustrated.
Interpretation of statutes: Cardinal principle of construction
of a statute - Held: Duty of the Court is to construe the Statute as a
whole - One provision of the Act is to be construed with reference
to other provisions so as to make a consistent enactment of the
whole Statute - Provisions which appear to be in conflict with each
other are to be constructed so as to harmonise them - While
interpreting a particular statutory provision, it should not result
into making the other provision a "dead letter" - Furthermore, the
court needs to ascertain the intention of the law-making authority
in the backdrop of dominant purpose and the intendment of the
Statute - Court will have to prefer an interpretation which makes
the Statute workable and gives effect to the intention of the
legislature than the one which defeats the purpose of the enactment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949 provides for election of Mayor and
Deputy Mayor from amongst the Councillors in the Corporation.
Sub-section (1A) of Section 19 of the Act provides that there
shall be reservation for the office of the Mayor in the Corporation,
by rotation, for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
Women and the Backward Class of Citizens, in the prescribed
manner. [Paras 13, 14][652-E, G-H]
1.2 Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations (Reservation of Offices of Mayors) Rules, 2006
provides that the Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify the number of offices of Mayors in the Municipal
Corporations in the State to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens and Women
(including the women belonging to the category of Backward Class
of Citizens). [Para 16][654-F-G]
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
1.3 Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 thereof provides
that by notification in the Official Gazette, the State Government
shall allot by draw of lots, the offices of the Mayors to be reserved
for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the Backward
Class of Citizens and Women, on the principles specified in subrule(1). Clause (b) thereof provides that the State Government
shall ensure that, at any given point of time, the number of offices
of Mayors, reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes, the Backward Class of Citizens and Women shall not be
less than the number determined in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1). Clause (c) provides that the lots in
respect of women belonging to a particular category shall be
drawn only among the offices of Mayors reserved for such
category. Clause (d) provides that while drawing lots, the office
of Mayors reserved for such category in the earlier years shall
be excluded from the draw of lots for those categories. Clause
(e) provides that the offices of Mayors to be reserved shall be
rotated in the subsequent terms of office of Mayor to such
Corporation in which no reservation has been made in the
previous terms until such reservations are given by rotation to
each category. It is thus clear that the scheme of Rules which is
in tune with Section 19(1A) of the said Act and in turn with the
constitutional provision under Article 243T of the Constitution,
is to provide reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in proportion to the total population of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal Corporation areas.
Insofar as the Backward Class is concerned, the reservation
provided is fixed at 27% of the total number of offices of Mayors.
1/3rd of the total number of posts shall be reserved for women
category including the one belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class of Citizens. Clause (a) of
sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules mandates the State
Government to allot by draw of lots, the offices of Mayors for the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens
and Women, on the principles specified in sub-rule (1). Clause
(b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules mandates the State
Government to ensure that, at any given point of time, the number
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
of offices of Mayors, reserved for the said categories, shall not
be less than the number determined in accordance with the
provisions of sub-rule(1). Clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of
the said Rules provides that the lots in respect of women
belonging to a particular category shall be drawn only among the
offices of Mayors reserved for such category. Clause (d) of subrule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that while drawing
lots, the offices of Mayors reserved for such category in the
earlier years shall be excluded from the draw of lots for those
categories. Clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules
requires that the offices of Mayors to be reserved, shall be rotated
in the subsequent terms of office of Mayor to such Corporation,
in which no reservation has been made in the previous terms
until such reservations are given by rotation to each category.
[Paras 18, 19][655-E-H; 656-A-G]
1.4 The High Court, while interpreting clause (e) of sub-rule
(2) of Rule 3 held that until the reservations are given by rotation
to each category, the reservation cannot be provided to a category
for which reservation was already provided. [Para 20][656-G-H]
M. Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka and Others Writ
Petition No. 38256 of 2013 decided on 06.01.2014 -
referred to.
1.5 There is no hesitation in observing that sub-rule (2) of
Rule 3 of the said Rules has not been happily worded. On a plain
reading, various clauses in the sub-rule are capable of being
interpreted in a manner that there are inconsistencies and at times,
conflict amongst them. It is the duty of the Court to construe the
Statute as a whole and that one provision of the Act has to be
construed with reference to other provisions so as to make a
consistent enactment of the whole Statute. It is the duty of the
Court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections and construe
the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each other in
such a manner so as to harmonise them. It is further equally
settled that while interpreting a particular statutory provision, it
should not result into making the other provision a "useless
lumber" or a "dead letter". While construing the provisions, the
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Court will have to ascertain the intention of the law-making
authority in the backdrop of dominant purpose and the underlying
intendment of the Statute. [Paras 24, 31][660-F-G; 664-F-H]
Philips India Limited v. Labour Court, Madras and
Others (1985) 3 SCC 103 : [1985] 3 SCR 491;
Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited v. Babubhai
Shankerlal Pandya and Others (1987) 1 SCC 606 :
1987 (1) JT 462; Mohan Kumar Singhania and Others
v. Union of India and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594;
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373
: [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 707; Jagdish Singh v. Lt.
Governor, Delhi and Others (1997) 4 SCC 435 : [1997]
2 SCR 953; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan
Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR
387 - referred to.
1.6 The 2006 Rules are mechanism for giving effect to the
constitutional mandate under Article 243T of the Constitution of
providing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
and the enabling provision for providing reservation for Backward
Class of Citizens in proportion to their population. The said Rules
have been prescribed so as to provide a procedure for the
reservation of the office of Mayor in the Corporation by rotation
for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, Women and the
Backward Class of Citizens as mandated under Section 19 (1A)
of the said Act. It could thus be seen that the intent and the
dominant purpose of Rule 3 of the said Rules is to provide
reservation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward
Class of Citizens and Women and further to ensure that there is
no repetition of reservation of a particular category in a particular
Corporation. It could thus be seen that the dominant purpose
and the legislative intent of the said Rules is to provide reservation
in proportion of the population of such categories in the Municipal
areas and also to ensure that while all the eligible Corporations
get reservation at some point of time for the different categories,
at the same time there would be no repetition of reservation until
the rotation is complete. However, while doing so, the number of
seats reserved for a particular category also cannot be ignored.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
The total number of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes are 3
whereas for Backward Class of citizens, they are 7. Sub-rule (2)
of Rule 3 prescribes the manner in which the seats are to be
allotted to be reserved for various categories including women.
[Para 32][665-A-F]
1.7 No doubt, that at the first blush, an isolated reading of
clause (e) is capable of being interpreted in a manner that until
reservation is provided for each category by rotation, the said
office cannot be reserved for a category for which it was already
reserved. However, if the Rules along with Article 243T of the
Constitution and Section 19(1A) of the said Act are read as a
whole, then the dominant purpose behind the said Rules appears
to be that the reservation as mandated in the Constitution, should
be provided for offices of Mayors in the Corporations. While doing
so, the reservation has to be provided by a draw of lots. It has to
be ensured that at any given point of time, the number of offices
of Mayors reserved for such categories should not be less than
the number determined in accordance with the provisions of subrule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules. Clause (d) of sub-rule (2) of
Rule 3 of the said Rules also provides that while drawing lots,
the offices of Mayors reserved for such category in the earlier
years, shall be excluded from the draw of lots for those categories.
The purpose appears to ensure that the reservation is not thrust
upon a particular Corporation again and again and all the
Corporations, at some point of time, will have the office of Mayor
reserved for particular category in accordance with the said Rules.
The office of Mayor can be reserved for Scheduled Tribes in only
9 Corporations whereas all the Corporations are eligible for
reservation for Scheduled Castes and Backward Class of Citizens.
However, taking into consideration the fact that the number of
seats reserved for Scheduled Castes are 3 whereas for Backward
Class of Citizens, they are 7 i.e. more than twice, it is quite
probable that the post of Mayor could be reserved for two earlier
terms for Backward Class of Citizens and whereas no reservation
is provided for Scheduled Castes. A harmonious construction of
the said Rules would not lead to a conclusion that the procedure
as followed by the State Government in allotting the reservation
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
by draw of lots, would be said to be inconsistent with the scheme
of the said Rules. As has been explained in the affidavit by the
Regional Deputy Director, after excluding 12 Corporations which
are already reserved for Scheduled Castes in the earlier years
and the one which was reserved for Scheduled Tribes in the first
draw of lots, there were 14 Corporations available including the
Dhule Municipal Corporation. The said Corporation was also
included in the draw of lots for Scheduled Castes. However, in
the draw of lots, it could not be reserved for Scheduled Castes.
However, insofar as Backward Class is concerned, out of 27
Corporations, 26 Corporations excluding newly created Panvel
Corporation were already reserved for Backward Class in the
earlier years. As such, the State excluded the 7 Corporations
which were immediately reserved for the Backward Class and
also excluded the 4 Corporations which were reserved for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the present draw of
lots. Coincidentally, in the draw of lots, Dhule Municipal
Corporation was one of the 7 Corporations which got to be
reserved for the Backward Class. [Para 33][665-G-H; 666-A-H;
667-A]
1.8 Such a situation is bound to occur in view of the difference
in number of seats, reserved for Scheduled Castes and Backward
Class of Citizens. If the interpretation as placed is to be accepted
then unless the post of Mayor is reserved for Scheduled Tribes
in all the Corporations to complete the rotation, it will not be
possible to provide reservation for the categories which were
already reserved earlier. However, it could be seen that as per
the Rules, only 9 Corporations could be reserved for Scheduled
Tribes. Therefore, the combined reading of the said Rules along
with the constitutional mandate under Article 243T of the
Constitution and Section 19(1A) of the Act would not permit the
interpretation as placed by the High Court. [Para 34][667-B-D]
1.9 The Court will have to prefer an interpretation which
makes the Statute workable. The interpretation which gives effect
to the intention of the legislature, will have to be preferred. The
interpretation which brings about the effect of result, will have to
be preferred than the one which defeats the purpose of the
enactment. The dominant intent of the said Rules is to give effect
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
to the reservation policy while ensuring that reservations are
not repeated in particular Corporations and at the same time in
all the Corporations, there shall be reservation, at some point of
time, for all the eligible categories by rotation. The legislative
intent is to exclude the Corporations which were earlier reserved
for a particular category until all the categories are provided
reservation. However, while doing so, the Court will have to
interpret Rule 3 of the said Rules in such a manner that this
scheme is made workable and not frustrated. Taking into
consideration the difference in number of seats for Scheduled
Castes and Backward Class of Citizens, the interpretation as
placed by the High Court, would not make the said Rules workable
and give effect to the legislative intent. It would have been a
different matter that even after completion of the cycle, requisite
reservation as per the Rules is not provided to the Scheduled
Castes and excessive reservation is provided for Backward Class
of Citizens. Such is not the case. Unfortunately, for the writ
petitioner, even for the present term, Dhule Municipal
Corporation was also in the pool of eligible Corporations for draw
of lots for Scheduled Castes category. However, in the draw, it
could not be reserved for Scheduled Castes. Only thereafter,
Dhule Municipal Corporation was considered in the pool of draw
of lots for Backward Class of Citizens. This was so because in
the immediate preceding elections, the office of Mayor was not
reserved for Backward Class of Citizens. Thus, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside. [Para 38, 42][669-C-H; 671-B]
State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami and Others
(1975) 4 SCC 745 : [1976] 1 SCR 38; Commissioner
of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC
57 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 387; Balram Kumawat v.
Union of India and Others (2003) 7 SCC 628 : [2003]
3 Suppl. SCR 24; The Regional Manager and Another
v. Pawan Kumar Dubey (1976) 3 SCC 334 : [1976] 3
SCR 540 - referred to.
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1985] 3 SCR 491
referred to
Para 25
[1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 707
referred to
Para 28
[1997] 2 SCR 953
referred to
Para 29
[2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 387
referred to
Para 30, 36
[1976] 1 SCR 38
referred to
Para 35
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 24
referred to
Para 37
[1976] 3 SCR 540
referred to
Para 41
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5060 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.14440
of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5061, 5062 and 5063 of 2021
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Braj Kishore Mishra, Vinod Kumar,
Abhishek Yadav, Amit Bhagat, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, N.L. Choudhari,
Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms. Rucha A. Pande, Nishant Ramakantrao
Katneshwarkar, Prashant Katneshwarkar, Yogesh B. Bolkar, Sachin Patil,
Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay
Kumar, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Suhas Kadam, M/s Black & White Solicitors,
Adv. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. All these appeals take exception to the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad dated 7th May 2021, thereby allowing the writ
petition being Writ Petition No.14440 of 2019, filed by respondent No.1Sanjay Sudhakar Jadhav and setting aside the Notification dated 27th
November 2019 in respect of Dhule Municipal Corporation, vide which
the Office of Mayor in Dhule Municipal Corporation for the term
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
commencing from June, 2021 was reserved for Backward Class category.
The High Court further directed the State of Maharashtra to reconsider
the reservation process for the office of Mayor in Dhule Municipal
Corporation in accordance with the observations made by it in the
judgment.
3. Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 7556 of 2021, 7557 of
2021 and 7558 of 2021 are filed by the Municipal Councillors who belong
to the Backward Class category whereas the appeal arising out of
SLP(C) No. 8870 of 2021 is filed by the State of Maharashtra.
4. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of these appeals are as under:-
We will refer to the facts in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.7556
of 2021. The respondent No.1 though belongs to the Scheduled Caste
category, was elected as a Councillor to the Dhule Municipal Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "said Corporation") from the General
category. By the Notification dated 27th November 2019, the Office of
Mayor in the said Corporation was earmarked for Backward Class of
Citizens for the next term of two and half years commencing from June,
2021. Contending that from the year 2003 onwards, the Office of Mayor
in the said Corporation was reserved for Backward Class category on
various occasions, but was not reserved for Scheduled Caste category,
a petition came to be filed by the respondent No.1, challenging the said
reservation with a prayer for direction to reserve the post of Mayor of
the said Corporation for the next term of two and a half years for
Scheduled Caste category. The said petition came to be allowed as
aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court while construing subrule (2) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Reservation
of Offices of Mayors) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "said
Rules") and relying on the judgment of the Single Judge of the Karnataka
High Court held that since already on two earlier occasions, the Office
of Mayor of the said Corporation was reserved for Backward Class,
reserving the same again for Backward Class coupled with the fact that
there has been no reservation for the Scheduled Caste category, amounted
to violation of rotation policy. As such, it remanded the matter to
respondent No.2-State for consideration afresh in accordance with these
observations.
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
6. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel
and Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the private appellants and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. We have heard Mr. Nishant
Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-original writ petitioner.
7. It is the contention of the appellants that the judgment of the
High Court is rendered without considering the import of Clauses (d)
and (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules. It is submitted that out
of the 27 total seats of Mayors available in the State, 1 is reserved for
Scheduled Tribes, 3 are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 7 are reserved
for Backward Class of Citizens. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that out of 27 seats, only 9 seats are eligible for reservation of
Scheduled Tribes category. It is stated that taking into consideration the
fact that the seats reserved for Backward Class of Citizens are 7 as
against 3 for Scheduled Castes, which is more than twice, it is quite
possible that while applying the said Rules, the reservation may be
provided for Backward Class category on more than one occasion and
no reservation be provided for Scheduled Castes even on a single
occasion.
8. It is stated on behalf of the State that while earmarking the
seats of Mayor, the State of Maharashtra had followed an appropriate
procedure so as to give effect to the said Rules. It is submitted that,
however, the same has not been taken into consideration by the High
Court.
9. As against this, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the original writ petitioner would submit that the High Court
has correctly applied the principle of rotation and held that unless all the
categories got representation in a particular Municipal Corporation, the
reservation for a particular category cannot be repeated.
10. It is not in dispute that from 2003 to 2017, the Office of Mayor
of the said Corporation was reserved for Backward Class category for
two terms, out of the total 7 terms. It is also not in dispute that there was
no reservation provided for the Scheduled Castes category even once.
We will have to consider the rival submissions in the backdrop of this
factual scenario.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
11. It will be relevant to refer to Article 243T of the Constitution
of India which reads thus:-
"243T. Reservation of seats
(1) Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality and the number of seats
so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion
to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that
Municipality as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the
Municipal area or of the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area
bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be
allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Municipality.
(2) Not less than one third of the total number of seats reserved
under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes.
(3) Not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved
for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election
in every Municipality shall be reserved for women and such seats
may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a
Municipality.
(4) The offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and
women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law,
provide.
(5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the
reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation
for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the
expiration of the period specified in Article 334.
(6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State
from making any provision for reservation of seats in any
Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in
favour of backward class of citizens."
12. Perusal of Clause (1) of Article 243T would reveal that it
mandates the State to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Tribes in every Municipality. It further mandates that the number of
seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to
the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the Municipality
as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the Municipal area or of the
Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal area bears to the total population of
that area. It further mandates that such seats may be allotted by rotation
to different constituencies in a Municipality. Clause (2) thereof provides
that not less than 1/3rd of the total number of seats reserved under Clause
(1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or,
as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. Clause (3) provides that not
less than 1/3rd (including the number of seats reserved for women
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total
number of seats to be filled by direct election shall be reserved for women
and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in
a Municipality. Clause (4) thereof provides that the offices of the
Chairpersons in the Municipalities shall be reserved for the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the
Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. Clause (6) thereof enables
the Legislature of the State to make provision for reservation of seats in
any Municipality or offices of Chairpersons in the Municipalities in favour
of Backward Class of Citizens.
13. Section 19 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act,
1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") provides for election of
Mayor and Deputy Mayor from amongst the Councillors in the
Corporation. It will be relevant to refer to Section 19 (1A) of the said
Act:-
"19. Mayor and Deputy Mayor
(1) ...
(1A) There shall be reservation for the office of the Mayor in the
Corporation, by rotation, for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes, women and the Backward Class of citizens, in the
prescribed manner."
14. It could thus be seen that sub-section (1A) of Section 19 of
the said Act provides that there shall be reservation for the office of the
Mayor in the Corporation, by rotation, for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes, Women and the Backward Class of Citizens, in the
prescribed manner.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
15. The manner of reservation has been provided under Rule 3 of
the said Rules which reads thus:-
"3. Reservation of offices for the election of Mayor- (1) The
State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify the number of offices of Mayors in the Municipal
Corporations in the State to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of Citizens
and Women (including the women belonging to the category of
Backward Class of Citizens) on the following principles:-
(a) The number of offices of Mayors to be so reserved for the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall bear, as nearly as
may be, the same proportion to the number of such offices in the
Corporations in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal Corporation areas bears
to the total population of all Municipal Corporation areas:
Provided that, such office of Mayor may not be so reserved, if
the number of Councillors to be elected at ward elections from
the category of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes is less
than three:
Provided further that, while specifying such reservation onethird of the total number of seats so reserved shall be reserved
for the women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case
may be, the Scheduled Tribes:
Provided also that, in a Municipal Corporation, where only one
office of the Councillor is reserved for the Scheduled Caste or, as
the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes, then it shall not be necessary
to reserve the office for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes
or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes;
(b) As nearly as may be, twenty-seven per cent of the total
number of offices of Mayors in the State shall be reserved for the
category of Backward Class of Citizens:
Provided that, one-third of the offices so reserved shall be
reserved for Women belonging to the category of Backward Class
of Citizens;
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
(c) One-third of the total number of offices of Mayors in the
State (including the number of offices reserved for the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class
of Citizens) shall be reserved for women.
(2) The State Government shall,-
(a) By notification in the Official Gazette, allot by draw of
lots, the offices of the Mayors to be reserved for the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the category of Backward Class of
Citizens and Women, on the principles specified in sub-rule (1).
(b) Ensure that, at any given point of time, the number of offices
of Mayors, reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes, the category of Backward Class of Citizens and Women
shall not be less than the number determined in accordance with
the provisions of sub-rule (1).
(c) The lots in respect of women belonging to a particular
category shall be drawn only among the offices of Mayors reserved
for such category.
(d) While drawing lots, the office of Mayor reserved for such
category in the earlier years shall be excluded from the draw of
lots for those categories;
(e) The offices of Mayors to be reserved shall be rotated in
the subsequent terms of office of Mayor to such Corporation, in
which no reservation has been made in the previous terms until
such reservations are given by rotation to each category."
16. It is clear that sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides
that the Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
the number of offices of Mayors in the Municipal Corporations in the
State to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Backward Class of Citizens and Women (including the women belonging
to the category of Backward Class of Citizens). Clause (a) of sub-rule
(1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the number of offices of
Mayors to be so reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the number of
such offices in the Corporations in the State as the population of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal Corporation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
areas bears to the total population of all Municipal Corporation areas.
Obviously, the said provision is in tune with Clause (1) of Article 243T of
the Constitution of India. The first proviso thereof provides that such
office of Mayor may not be so reserved, if the number of Councillors to
be elected at ward elections from the category of the Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes is less than 3. The second proviso provides that
while specifying such reservation, 1/3rd of the total number of seats so
reserved shall be reserved for the women belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. It further provides
that in a Municipal Corporation, where only one office of the Councillor
is reserved for the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the
Scheduled Tribes, then it shall not be necessary to reserve the office for
women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the
Scheduled Tribes.
17. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides
that as nearly as may be, 27% of the total number of offices of Mayors
in the State shall be reserved for the category of Backward Class of
Citizens. The proviso thereof provides that 1/3rd of the offices so reserved
shall be reserved for Women belonging to the category of Backward
Class of Citizens. Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules
provides that 1/3rd of the total number of offices of Mayors in the State
(including the number of offices reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes and the category of Backward Class of Citizens) shall
be reserved for women.
18. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules would be the most
relevant one inasmuch as it is that provision which falls for consideration
in the present matter. Clause (a) thereof provides that by notification in
the Official Gazette, the State Government shall allot by draw of lots,
the offices of the Mayors to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Tribes, the Backward Class of Citizens and Women, on the
principles specified in sub-rule(1). Clause (b) thereof provides that the
State Government shall ensure that, at any given point of time, the number
of offices of Mayors, reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
Tribes, the Backward Class of Citizens and Women shall not be less
than the number determined in accordance with the provisions of subrule (1). Clause (c) provides that the lots in respect of women belonging
to a particular category shall be drawn only among the offices of Mayors
reserved for such category. Clause (d) provides that while drawing lots,
SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL v. SANJAY AND OTHERS
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
the office of Mayors reserved for such category in the earlier years
shall be excluded from the draw of lots for those categories. Clause (e)
provides that the offices of Mayors to be reserved shall be rotated in the
subsequent terms of office of Mayor to such Corporation in which no
reservation has been made in the previous terms until such reservations
are given by rotation to each category.
19. It is thus clear that the scheme of Rules which is in tune with
Section 19(1A) of the said Act and in turn with the constitutional provision
under Article 243T, is to provide reservation to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to the total population of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Municipal Corporation areas. Insofar
as the Backward Class is concerned, the reservation provided is fixed at
27% of the total number of offices of Mayors. 1/3rd of the total number
of posts shall be reserved for women category including the one belonging
to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class of Citizens.
Clause (a) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules mandates the State
Government to allot by draw of lots, the offices of Mayors for the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of Citizens and
Women, on the principles specified in sub-rule (1). Clause (b) of subrule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules mandates the State Government to
ensure that, at any given point of time, the number of offices of Mayors,
reserved for the said categories, shall not be less than the number
determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule(1). Clause (c)
of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the lots in respect
of women belonging to a particular category shall be drawn only among
the offices of Mayors reserved for such category. Clause (d) of subrule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that while drawing lots, the
offices of Mayors reserved for such category in the earlier years shall
be excluded from the draw of lots for those categories. Clause (e) of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules requires that the offices of
Mayors to be reserved, shall be rotated in the subsequent terms of office
of Mayor to such Corporation, in which no reservation has been made in
the previous terms until such reservations are given by rotation to each
category.
20. The High Court, while interpreting clause (e) of sub-rule (2)
of Rule 3 of the said Rules, has held that until the reservations are given
by rotation to each category, the reservation cannot be provided to a
category for which reservation was already provided. While doing so,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
the High Court has relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court
in M. Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka and Others1. We will have to
examine the correctness of the said view.
21. The procedure adopted for draw of lots followed by the State
was explained by filing an affidavit before the High Court by Smt. Alice
Sufi Pore, Regional Deputy Director, Municipal Administration,
Aurangabad. It will be relevant to refer to paragraphs (5) to (8) of the
said affidavit:-
"5. The principles and manner for the reservation is mentioned in
the Rule 3 (1) and procedure to be followed by the State
Government is mentioned in Rule 3 (2) of Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations (Reservation of Offices of Mayor) Rules 2006.