V.M Kanade, J.:— Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective petitioners. Also heard the learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State & its authorities and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission.
2. In some of the petitions, Rule is already issued. In remaining petitions, Rule and Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. In all these petitions, petitioners have challenged the delimitation of zone on various grounds. The process of delimitation has commenced. The Collector published the proposed formation of electoral divisions and reservation of seats. The Collector received certain objections against the proposed formation of electoral divisions and reservation of seats. He submitted the proposals to the Divisional Commissioner along with his opinion for taking into consideration objections raised by various persons. The Divisional Commissioner, after proposals were received from the Collector, passed a detailed and final order in each individual case and direction was given for preparation of final delimitation plan as also declaration of reservation of seats.
4. Under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads & Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 [For short, hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1961”], the Collector has to divide every district into electoral divisions. The procedure for dividing the district into electoral divisions is mentioned in Section 12 of the Act of 1961. Clause 2(a) reveals that guidelines have been prepared by the State Election Commission for the purpose of reservation of certain seats and creation of electoral divisions. Accordingly, pursuant to the said guidelines, the Collector prepared plan. The provision mandates that the Collector shall submit the proposal to the Divisional Commissioner for approval along with the objections, if any, raised against the said proposal with his opinion thereon. The Divisional Commissioner has to consider the proposals of the Collector and by giving reasons, pass a final order.
5. Grievance of the petitioners is that firstly, the Divisional Commissioner did not give hearing to the petitioners. Secondly, it is submitted that proper reasons have not been given for the objections which are raised. Thirdly, it is submitted that the mandatory provision pertaining to reservation of seats also has not been considered and fourthly, it is submitted that the guidelines/directions given by the State Election Commission also have not been followed. It is submitted that the matter be sent back to the Divisional Commissioner with a direction to give hearing to the petitioners, thereafter decide the proposals given by the Collector and after giving hearing to the petitioners who have raised objections, the Divisional Commissioner may pass final order.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties at length and perused the detail affidavit in reply filed by the Divisional Commissioner.
7. The learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioners cannot challenge the decision of the Divisional Commissioner in view of the bar imposed under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 Supp (2) SCC 305].
8. Section 12 of the Act of 1961 lays down that the State Election Commission has to divide every District into electoral divisions. The State Election Commission has to prepare guidelines for the purpose of manner in which the said thing is to be done. It is not necessary to re-produce either Section 12 or the guidelines which are prepared by the State Election Commission. Perusal of the said guidelines and Section 12 of the Act of 1961 clearly reveals that this is done for administrative purposes so that elections can be held in accordance with the Rules and provisions by dividing the District into electoral divisions. Individual voters or persons who are interested in contesting elections cannot raise objections that in a particular electoral division, certain villages be removed and the same be attached to some other electoral division on account of the reason that prejudice would be caused to the persons who are contesting the election or voters.
9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission has rightly invited our attention to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo v. Collector, Satara [2010 (6) Mh.L.J 109]. The Division Bench of this Court after relying on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti (supra), has held that in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, delimitation of Panchayat area/constituencies determined by the authorities is not open to judicial scrutiny. The Division Bench of this Court observed in para 0 9 of the judgment as under:—
“Counsel for the respondent No. 2 further contended that the challenge in the present petition is to the “formation of wards” in Panchayat elections. In other words petition challenges the delimitation of Panchayat area/constituencies determined by the authorities and therefore in view of provisions of Article 243-0, it is well settled that the delimitation of Panchayat area or constituencies in the said area are not open to judicial scrutiny. In order to substantiate the said contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 305. The challenge can be entertained by the Court only on the ground that before delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given. It is submitted that in the present case admittedly the objections were invited. Petitioners had raised their objections and after hearing them the objections were turned down by the Collector Satara by recording reasons and therefore impugned order is sustainable in law.”
10. We have perused the reasoned orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner has passed well reasoned orders and has given reasons why in some cases he has not accepted proposals given by the Collector and also considered the objections of the objectors. It cannot be said that the exercise done by the Divisional Commissioner is arbitrary.
11. Taking into consideration all these aspects and in view of the specific bar under Article 24 3-O of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that no case is made out for interference with the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
12. In the result, petitions fail and same are dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.