High Court of Gujarat

ISHWARBHAI NARSENGBHAI PARMARversusTHE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

Disposal: 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDAL ODEDRA

Holding

The petitioner is precluded from challenging the final notification and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Ishwarbhai Narsengbhai Parmar filed a writ petition challenging the State Election Commission's final notification reserving a District Panchayat seat in Vav‑Tharad for a Scheduled Caste woman. The petitioner argued that the earlier draft notification of 25‑Feb‑2026 already allocated the seat to a Scheduled Caste and a Scheduled Caste woman, and that he had not raised any objections at that stage. The Court examined Rule 5 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Delimitation of Electoral Divisions) Rules, 2010, which requires the Commission to invite public suggestions before finalising delimitation. Since the petitioner made no suggestions or objections to the draft, the Court held that he was barred from contesting the final notification dated 9‑Mar‑2026. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a failure to raise objections or suggestions during the draft notification stage precludes a later challenge to the final reservation order under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Delimitation of Electoral Divisions) Rules, 2010.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act

Subjects

reservationdistrict panchayat electionScheduled Casteprocedural requirementwrit petitionState Election Commission

Judgment

     C/SCA/4655/2026                               JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4655 of 2026
==========================================================
                    ISHWARBHAI NARSENGBHAI PARMAR
                                  Versus
                  THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AMRUT H BHATIYA(7042) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
AISHVARYA(8018) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

                               Date : 01/04/2026

                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1.      In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the
decision of the authorities allotting the reservation to of the
election of the members of the District Panchayat, Vav-
Tharad.

2.      It is not in dispute that as required under Rule 5 of the
Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Delimitation of
Electoral         Divisions)   Rules,     2010,    the    State      Election
Commission before -nalizing the proposed delimitation of
Electoral Divisions of Taluka and District Panchayats and
allocation of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, Backward Classes and Women did invite suggestions
from the general public and also consulted the political
parties recognized under the Representation of People Act.

3.      Learned counsel for the State Election Commission

                                   Page 1 of 2
     C/SCA/4655/2026                                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026




points out that the petitioner however did not choose to give
any suggestions when the draft noti-cation was published on
25.2.2026 and hence, he would be precluded from challenging
the -nal noti-cation issued on 9.3.2026.

4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted
that though in earlier draft noti-cations 25.2.2026, in which
for the village of Vav and Tadav to which the petitioner has
been concerned, the seat had been reserved for Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Caste woman respectively. He submitted
that since the earlier noti-cation provided for reservation for
SC and SC woman, he did not raise any queries.

5.       This argument would, therefore, indicate that the
petitioner herein did not have any qualms regarding the draft
noti-cation dated 25.2.2026 and was satis-ed about the
reservation being allocated to the Scheduled Caste woman.

6.       In our view, since the petitioner did not raise any
objection or submitted any suggestions, he is precluded from
challenging the -nal noti-cation issued thereafter, whereby
reservation allotted to the Scheduled Caste woman has been
con-rmed. We therefore, DISMISS the writ petition.


                                                                                                Sd/-
                                                                                (N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)


                                                                                                        Sd/-              -




                                                                                            (J. L. ODEDRA, J)
OMKAR
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: OMKAR CHHAGANLAL MAHAWAR(HC00201), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 02/04/2026 16:47:21




                                                      Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "reservation"Sign in to search