Sanjay Ramdas Patil vs Sanjay and Others

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]

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 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 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. 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 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 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.