A. RAGHUVIR, J.

( 1 ) THE above group of writ petitions were lodged between December 1986 to February 25, 1987. The cases relate to the election in 1080 madals and Zilla Parishads in the State. In view of the importance of the questions raised in the writ petitions, alearned single Judge of this Court referred the eases to a Divisional Bench. On February, 5, 1987 the Divisional Bench in its turn referred the cases be heard by a Bench of three Judges. That explains how the three Judges have heard the cases.

( 2 ) IN the State of Andhra Pradesh after taluks are abolished, 1080 mandate were formed and elections were held in the Mandals and Zilla Praja parishads in March 1987 under the Andhra Pradesh Mandala Praja Parishads, zilla Praja Parishads and Zilla Pranalika Abhivrudhi Mandals Act, 1986, and Rules entitled "andhra Pradesh Mandala Praja Parishads and Zilla praja Parishads (Reservation of Offices of President of MPPs and Chairmen of ZPPs) Rules, 1987. Some of these cases were filed when election programme was published by the authorities Few cases were lodged after 1987 rules were promulgated. Some cases are filed thereafter beforr the poll was held as per the programme published.

( 3 ) IN the above cases numerous questions were raised with respect to reservation made in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women and Backward Classes under the Act. On February, 27, 1987 the operation pf the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act touching the scheduled areas in the state, was suspended. I will deal with this part of the case at first as in the order on February 27 reasons for the order were not set out and it was stated reasons will follow.

( 4 ) THE population of tribals in the State is 5. 93 per cent or 6 per cent of total population in the state and on that premise tribals are entitled to reservation of 65 mandals out of 1080 mandals; whereas reservation was made of 99 mandals in that 47 mandals are wholly situate in the scheduled areas. Since 47 mandals fall short of 6% and 65 mandals, therefore, 18 more mandals were to be reserved for the scheduled tribes. These 18 were to be either in non-scheduled areas, or where there is tribal population in areas other than the scheduled areas. In the order on February 27 it was indicated one mandal for each district barring five districts (Khammam, visakhapatnam, East Godavari, Adilabad and West Godavari) may be reserved. Thus 34 mandals were declared open mandals, This was indicated having considered the vires of Section 5 of the Act from the perspective of clause (4) in Article 15 and under Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. In the latter two Articles reservation is directed to be made in proportion to the population. We directed the Panchayat Raj Commissioner to allot 18 mandals but in view of the urgency, we did not give reasons for our order, therefore, I set them out now in this opinion.

( 5 ) WHILE considering reservations in favour of Tribals, we recapitulate the history of reservations in favour of tribals was made for the first time in Samithis and Zilla Parishads under Panchayat Samithis and Zila parishad Act, 35 of 1959. There were reservations in the entire state later in favour of tribals under Gram Panchayat Act, II of 1964.

( 6 ) THE Governor as to application of statutes to tribals is invested the power to make amendments under para 5 (3) of the 5th Schedule of the constitution. In exercise of that power a proviso to Section 12 of the andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, II of 1964 was added. That provision reads as follows : "provided further that the Sarpanch for every Gram panchayat in the Scheduled Areas shall be elected from among the member of the Gram Panchayat belonging to the Scheduled Tribes"- (A ). The governor added a proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 35 of 1959 so as to confine the elections of Presidents and vice-Presidents of every Panchayat Samithll in scheduled area to the members of the Panchayat Samithi belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. (B), Persuant to the powers under Act 35 of 1959 rules were promulgated. In particular Rules 6 (4) (b) and 6 (5) read as under: "6 (4) : Such of the blocks wherein the proportion of population of the scheduled castes to the total population of the scheduled castes to the total population are the largest in the descending order in the district shall be reserved in favour of the members belonging to the scheduled castes, excluding (a) those blocks reserved for the members belonging to the scheduled tribes ; and (b) blocks which fall within or form a substantial part of legislative Assembly Constituencies reserved for members belonging to the scheduled castes. (5) Blocks once reserved for the members belonging to scheduled castes shall not be so reserved in the next ordinary elections untill all the block in the District other than those reserved for the members belonging to scheduled tribes and those which are Assembly Constituencies or form a substantial part of Assembly Constituencies reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes have been reserved once in rotation. Reservation shall be rotated from one ordinary election to the other in the descending order of the proportion of the population of the scheduled castes to the total population as at last census of the blocks in succession. " (c ).

( 7 ) THUS, the statutory provisions in (A), (B) and (C) were considered by this Court at different times. A single Judge of this Court in Ramdass vs. Union of India, 1971 (2) An. W. R. 261 upheld the validity of the statute in (A) and observed : the Governor of a State is invested with overriding powers to make by public notifications any law relating to administration and control of the scheduled areas despite the other provisions including those enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution to safeguard and protect the interests of scheduled tribes residing in the scheduled areas who are economically, socially, politically, educationally and otherwise backward. As to the statute in (A) it was held in that case :". . in my considered opinion, any notification or regulation issued by the Governor under Para 5 (1) of the Fifth Scheduled to the Constitution, even if it contravenes the fundamental rights of any citizen is valid and intra vires of the powers vested in him. " The observation that even if it contravenes the fundamental rights of any citizen" was not necessary. That observation was in one sense obiter. While agreeing with the conclusion reached, the obiter observations cannot be supported. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached in that case relevant to the validity of the statute in (A ).

( 8 ) THE provision in (B) was considered by this Court in Nagabhushrum vs. Secy, to Govt. , AIR 1965 AP 3321964 (2) ALT 424 here again the powers of the Governor under para 5 of the 5th schedule were considered. It was held the Presidents and Vice- presidents of every Panchayat Samithi in Scheduled Area shall be selected from among the members of the panchayat samithi belonging to the scheduled tribe, is not ultra vires of the powers of the Governor. The reasoning and the conclusion reached in the above case is unexceptionable. It is not necessary to advert to the non-obstante clause in the 5th schedule considered in that case, as that part of the discumssion is not relevant for these cases. That aspect may have to be dealt at greater length in a more appropriate case.

( 9 ) THE Rules in (C) were considered in an unreported case in W. P. No, 2959 of 1979 and declared inconsistent with the provisions of Act 35 of 1959. Thus Rule 6 (4) (b) and the part of Rule 6 (5) starting with the clauses "and those which are Assembly Constituencies or form a substantial part of assembly Constituencies reserved for the members belonging to the scheduled tribes", were declared ultra vires, therefore, struck down. The reasoning in that case was followed in a reported case in R. V. Satyanarayana vs. State of a. P. (3 ). In the reported case the statute in (A) was reconsidered by a Division bench and it was hoped reservations continue for a short while in future upto January 25, 1990. The legitimate hope of the legislature was those for whom reservations were made will be rehabilitated so as to compete in equal terms with others in this country.

( 10 ) IN W. P. No. 3277 of 1981 the case of Bhadrachalam villags was considered. (This decision is incorporated in the reported oase ). The population of Bhadrachalam was shown 10,000 out of which 229 were tribals. In para 21 at page 197 it was held :"in the case of scheduled castes, it is provided that 14% of the posts of Sarpanches should be reserved for scheduled castes and the village should be chosen by rotation having regard to the population of the scheduled castes in that village but in the case of scheduled areas, all the posts of Sarpanches in all the villages are reserved for scheduled tribes. "this and five other cases setout in para 30 were allowed. The reservation of Sarpanch offices for Schedule Tribes in scheduled areas in (A) were struck down.

( 11 ) THE reservation was made for "advancement" of tribes and the reservation can be supported under Article 330 and 332 of the Constitution and also from the Stand point of clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution. Earlier we have upheld the reasoning of the case by which the statute ia (B) was upheld by a Divisional Bench and in indentical terms a single Judge ia ramdoss vs. Union of India (Supra) upheld the proviso to Sec. 12 of the Gram panchayat Act. In that view, the decision W. P. No 2952 of 1979 (unreported case) and a part of decision in R. V. Satyanarayana vs. State of A. P. , 1982 (1) ALT 3371982 (1) APLJ 187 cannot be held to have laid down the law correctly.

( 12 ) TO sum up, scheduled tribes population in the State is 5. 93%, therefore, rounding it off to 6%, the reservation of 47 mandals in favour of scheduled tribes in scheduled area is justified. The reservation of 18 mandals as set out in the order on February 27, one from each district other than five districts mentioned, is also justified. The reservation of 34 mandals in excess of the population is oppossed to Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, therefore, cannot be supported.

( 13 ) THE other question as to the validity of Explanation-2 to Section 5 (2) of the Act. This provision has relevance of statistics gathered by the socio-economic survey conducted by a Corporation for Backward Classes to justify 20% of 1080 mandals. The reservation per se and the reservation of 20% are two different components. The population of the backward classes is either stated to be 38. 04, 40. 18 or is stated of 52%. I make it clear I am not deciding that issue in the case. Since in this case reservation is 20% of seats, therefore, the reservation in Section 5 cannot be seriously assailed. In this respect I agree with the conclusion reached by my brother Jagannadha rao, J. I am also in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Judge as to validity of last proviso to Section 44 (1 ).

( 14 ) THERE was a dispute raised as respects the reservation in favour of women, besides reservation in favour-of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. I agree with the conclusions reached by my brother B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. , I agree with the conclusion reached under the heading of franchise of residents in notified areas and townships.

( 15 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the "andhra Pradesh mandala Praja Parishads, Zilla Praja Parishads, and Zilla Pranalika Aahivrudh mandals Act, 1986" (hereinafter referred to as the Act"), in July, 1986. In September 1986 it received the assent of the Governor. By notification issued under Section 1 (3), the Act has been brought into force with effect from 1-1-1987. In the month of January, 1987, the Legisature enacted an Amendment Act, being Act 3 of 1987, amending certain provisions, the Amending Act came into force. on 1-2-1987.

( 16 ) ONE of the writ petitions in the batch was filed even in year 1986, i. e. , before the Act was actually brought into force. Some others were filed on or before 2-2-1987. The writ petition filed earlier was posted before a learned single Judge of this Court for admission. The learned Judge, referred it to Bench for orders on account of the importance of the questions raised therein. Three writ petitions, which were the earliest in the batch, came up before a Bench constituting of myself and Jagannadha Rao, J. We admitted the writ petitions, heard the petitioners counsel and learned Advocate-General on the stay petitions, and adjourned the stay petitions to the next day, i. e. , on 5-2-1987, we gave certain directions, but did not stay the elections. At that stage, the Andhra Pradesh Mandala Praja Parishads and zilla Praja Parishads (Reservation of Offices of President of MPPs. and chairman of ZPPs.) Rules 1987, were not placed before us. Indeed, they were published in the Gazette on 4-2-1987. When these Rules were brought to our notice later, we gave certain further directions on 9-2-1987. Meanwhile, the "bharatiya Janata Party", a recognised political party, got itself impleaded in one of the writ petitions and asked for re-scheduling of the election programme. The Bench was not inclined to do that at that stage ia view of the fact that the writ petitions themselves were posted for final hearing on February 18, 1987, before a Full Bench. Accordingly, the matters were posted before the present Full Bench. The arguments in the case commenced^ on February 18,1987 and concluded on 27 February, 1987. Meanwhile every day a number of writ petitions were being filed which were admitted by the Full Bench and were made to join the batch.

( 17 ) ACCORDING to the election programme notified, the last date for filing the nominations was 21st of this month; the scrutiny took place on february 22. February 25, 1987 was the last date for withdrawal of nominations and for publication of valid list of nominations. Once the valid list of nominations is published, the printing of ballot-papers begins, as also all other arrangements for holding the poll scheduled on 11th and 14 of March, 1987 all over the State. The elections are being contested on Party basis, and the election compaign had already begun. (The Presidents of the Mandal praja Parishads, as well as the Chairmen of the Zilla Praja Parishads are being elected directly by all the voters in the State ). In view of this urgency, we made certain interlocutory orders on 27th february 1987, since there was no time for pronouncing a reasoned judgment. We notice that the Government has already taken action in terms of the said orders. I now proceed to state my reasons.

( 18 ) THE Act provides for constitution of a Mandala Praja Parishad for each of the 1080 Revenue Mandals situated in the State, excluding the Municipal corporations and Municipal Areas. Each Mandal is headed by a president. For each district, a Zilla Praja Parishad is constituted with a chairman as its head.

( 19 ) A Mandal Praja Parishad (M. P. P.) ordinarily consists of about 12 to 15 villages, covering a population of 35,000. 55,000 The Act is a measure or local-self government. All the surpanchas of the Gram Panchayats situated within a Mandal area become the members of the MPP. The membership extends to certain other persons like M. L. As. and M. Ps. also, which it is not necessary to mention here since I am concerned only with the office of the presidents of Mandals. The President of the MPP Has to be elected by all the voters in the Mandal Area directly. Section 5 of the Act, which provides for the election of the President of MPP also provides for rule of reservation. Sub-section (2) contains a number of Provisos and Explanations, which it may not be necessary to set out at length here. Suffice it to say that reservation is made in favour of Schedule-Tribes, Scheduled-Castes, Women, and backward-Classes in the proportion of 6% 15% and 20% respectively. However, all the Mandals situated wholly within the Scheduled Areas are reserved for Scheduled Tribes exclusively, All over the State, except Scheduled areas, a rule of rotation is provided to ensure that the same Mandal is not reserved for a particular category at each election. The rule is that a Mandal, where the number of members of a particular category is the largests should be reserved for that category. The cencus figures prepared and published by the Government of India indicate the population of Scheduled tribes, Scheduled Castes, and women separately, but they do not indicate the population or ratio of Backward-Classes in the total population. The Legislature, therefore, provided that for identifying the Mandals to be reserved for backward-Classes, "the population figures of the Backward-Classes gathered in the socio-economic survey conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Backward- classes Cooperative Finance Corporation, Ltd. , Hyderabad shall be taken as the basis". Number of questions are raised with respect to validity of the several Provisos and Explanations contained in Section 5, which I shall refer to and deal with at appropriate stage.

( 20 ) COMING to the office of Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishads, rule of reservation is applied here too in the same ratio. It is, however, provided that "the reservation of the office of the Chairman to all the categories put together shall be in the ratio of 2:2:1 in respect of the three regions of State. namely, Coastal Andhra, Tclangana, and Rayalaseema respectively". This region-wise division of the State is also called in question.

( 21 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners urged the following contentions : (1) The Constitution does not provide for, or permit reservation of political offices in favour of Scheduled-Tribes, Scheduled-Castes, women or backward-Classes. The only reservation in the matter of political offices is the one contained in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, Article 15 does not permit any such reservation. Under Art. 15, reservation can be made only in social and educational field, and may be in economic field, but certainly not in political field. The reservation provided in matter of election of Presidents of MPPs. , and Chairman of ZPPS is therefore unconstitutional and illegal. (2) (a) The second proviso to Section 5 (2) while purporting to reserve only 6% of the Mandals in favour of Scheduled Tribes consistent with their population, has, in effect, reserved 50% more Mandals in their favour; whereas they are entitled to 65 Mandals, 99 Mandals are reserved for them, as a result of the combined operation of clauses (a) and (b) of the said second proviso. This excessive and disproportionate reservation is unreasonable and impermissible ; it has the effect of reducing the number of Mandals reserved for other reserved categories, besides open competition quota ; (b) since the Act treats the district as a unit for applyiug the rule ot reservation, the population of each district must be taken as the basis, and not the State-Wide figures; the population of reserved categories in each district must form the basis. If so, in certain districts the population of backward Classes is in majority. The population figures of the reserved categories also vary from district to district. Moreover, the total reservation of ail the Mandals within Scheduled Areas for Scheduled Tribes is resulting in the total reservation going far beyoad 50%, which is impermissible. In khammam district the total reservations are about 72% and in Visakhapatnam about 61%. Such excessive reservation is bad, as held by the Supreme court and this Court, (3) The Act provides for identification of Mandals to be reserved for backward Classes on the basis of population figures gathered by the A. P. Backward Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation, Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") during the socio-economic survey conducted by it. Neither the said survey, nor the population figures gathered therein have been published so far. The said survey has been conducted by the Corporation which is only a co-operative society; nor is the survey conducted under any statutory provision. The said survey figures are ex facie unacceptable. In the ease of several Mandals, if the population of Backward Classes is taken according to the said survey, the population of Backward Classes together with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes alone exceeds 100%, leaving no room for the so-called forward castes and non-Hindus like Muslims, Christians, etc. Indeed, the Finance Corporation was not entrusted with, nor had it any occasion to collect the population figures of the Backward Classes among the entire population. These figures have been bloated up to serve the purpose of the ruling-party. Identification of Mandals to be reserved for backward Classes on the basis of such un-published private documents is arbitrary and has given rise to unjust and wrong reservation. (4) The populations within the notified areas and townships have been taken into consideration for the purpose of rule of reservation, and the mandal Praja Parishads also propose to carry on developmental activities in such areas, but the voters residing in these areas are deprived of their right of franchise. This is discriminatory and unreasonable. . (5) The division of the State into three regions and providing that reservations in the offices of chairmen of Z. P. Ps. shall be in the proportion of 2:2:1 as between Costal Andhra Telangana and Rayalaseema regions, is constitutionally impermissible.

( 22 ) THE learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, disputed the correctness of all the above contentions. He sought to justify the method of reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes, and also the reliance upon the population figures gathered during the socio-economic survey con ducted by the Corporation for identifying the Mandals to be reserved for Backward classes. He submitted that the reservation of political offices is not prohibited by the Constitution, and that the last proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 44 (prescribing the ratio of 2:2:1 between the three regions of the State in the matter of reservation to the office of Chairman of ZPPs) is reasonable and justified: i shall deal with the contentions urged by the petitioners in their proper order. I. Permissibility and Legality of reservation of political offices:

( 23 ) ARTICLES 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for reservation in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies in favour of Scheduled Tribes and scheduled Castes in proportion to their population in the total population of a given State. The Constitution does not either expressly prohibit or permit reservation in the matter of other political offices. The Act is a measure of local-self government enacted by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, and is referable to Entry 5 in List-II of the Seventh Schedule. While creating such local bodies it was open to the Legislature to prescribe their composition; and Chait Ram vs. Sikandar, AIR 1968, Patna, 337 (F. B.);. Unless the provision so made is violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution, or suffers from legislative incompetence, its validity remains beyond challenge. The question, therefore, arises: where from is the said prohibition deduced by the petitioners ? Their reasoning on this aspect runs: Had the founding lathers contemplated such a reservation, they would have expressly provided therefore; the only exception they made is in the case of Parliament and State Legislatures, that too far a short period of ten years. In any event, such a reservation in favour of Backward Classes and/or women was never contemplated or envisaged, which is evident from the fact that while providing for reservation in favour of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, articles 330 and 332 provide no such reservation in favour of Backward chases or women. Clause (4) of Art. 15 too does not warrant such a reservation. Under this clause, the provision for advancement to be made by the state is one aimed at social and educational advancement of backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but not political advancement. There is no such thing as political backwardness , though social and educational backwardness is a well accepted concept. The circumstances in which the said clause was introduced by way of First Amendment, and also the language employed therein, clearly showit is arguedthat the measure of advancement contemplated by the said clause could never have been contemplated to extend to political field. Such political reservation tends to perpetuate the division of society along caste and communal lines, and is alto not desirable from the point of view of national interest and integrity of the country. After all, "backward classes" in this State are nothing but "backward castes" ; hence the reservation for Backward Classes is, in truth, a reservation in favour of certain castes.

( 24 ) ON the other hand, the reasoning of the learned Advocate Genaral runs follow: the Constitution could not have Contemplated the crestion of several local bodies in future and, therefore, it could not have provided for reservation in such bodies. The very Articles 330 and 332 show that the reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible. If so, under clause (4) of Art. 15 reservation in favour of Backward classes and under clause (3) of Art. 15 reservation in favour of women is equally permissible. The Andhra Pradesh Legislature though in its wisdom that these categories require encouragement in political field as well and, accordingly, provided this reservation. This is not a new provision made by the present legislature. Even in the preceding Act, i. e. , A. P. Panchayat samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, as also in the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act, there was reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, besides women. The only new category now introduced is back-ward Classes. Such reservation has been recognized and upheld by the courts in the country. No decision has taken a contrary view.

( 25 ) THE petitioner s contention is really in two parts the first one relating to the constitutional scheme and sanction, and the second relating to the interpretation of clause (4) in Art. 15. I must confess that the emotional appeal of the petitioner s argument is not easy to resist. But there are reasons for which I am not inclined to give effect to the same. It is true that the founding fathers provided for reservation only in favour of Scheduled Tribes and scheduled Castes in "the main representative political bodies and did not provide for any such reservation in favour of either women or backward classes. Of course, by that date the Backward Classes had not been notified ; the exercise had not yet begun. But they also did not provide for any such reservation in favour of women who, at any rate, were more backward at that point of time than today. But does that indicate a prohibition? It should be remembered, as warned by Chief Justice Marshall in Mccullech vs. Maryland, "we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. . . :. . It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies wich if foreseen at all must have been seen dimly and which can at best be provided for as they occur". A constitution is an organic charter of the Governament and it is not always a happy exercise, particularly on the part of High Courts, to infer and create judicial constraints on the legislative wing of the State with reference to the scheme, and spirit of the Constitution. I am reminded in this connection of the warning administered by a noted American jurist, Thayer. He said: "this rule (doctrine of separation of powers) recognizes that having regard to the great complex ever unfolding exigencies of Government, much which will seem unconstitutional to one man or body of men, may reasonably not seem so to another; that the Constitution often admits of different interpretations; that there is often a range of choice and judgement; that in such cases the Constitution does not impose upon the Legislature any one specific opinion but leaves open this range of choice, and that whatever choice is rational is constitutional. " (A) Court cannot always. . . . . . say that there is but one right and permissible way of construing the Constitution. What a court is interpreting a writing merely to ascertain or apply its true meaning, then indeed there is but one meaning allowable : namely, what the court adjudges to be Its true meaning. But when the true question is not that, but whether certain acts of another department. . . . . . . . are legal of permissible then this is not true. In the class of casts which we have been considering, the ultimate question is not what is the true meaning of the Constitution, but whether legislation is sustainable, or not. . . . "; it is true that this conservative view has been rejected in the United States itself since brown s case; yet this warning serves the limited purpose of putting the court on the guard in cases where it is invited to strike down a legislation on the ground of violating, the scheme and spirit of the Constitution. In trying to ascertain the valuejudgments underlying the Constitution, the Judges must guard against introducing their own value-judgments. Now coming to the constitutional scheme and spirit, it is well to understand its bask goal. He goal is to secure to all citizens justice: social, and political; liberty of thought and expression, belief, faith and worship; and equality of status and opportunity. The Directive Principles of State policy enshrimed in Part IV of the Constitution constitute the path and direction i which the State shall proceed. Among other obligations placed upon the State, one is to protect the weaker sections of the society form social in justice and from all forms of exploitation; (Art. 46 ). The three facets of justice mentioned in the Preamble as well as in Art. 38 (1) are inter-connected and inseparable. Whenever any jurist has tried to define social justice , he has necessarily slided into economic sphere. That is how the concept of socio-economic justice was coined. I am of the opinion that economic justice and political justice are similarly intertwined. Economics can never be free from politics. Indeed, political exploitation and economic exploitation feed upon each other and are mutually contributory. Now, the legislature of the State is of the opinion that representation should be provided to Backward Classes and women also in the institutions of local-self government. The reason, according to them, is that these two categories still constitute weaker sections of the society, and that such a measure is necessary for their advancement. The idea is that representatives of these categories, constitute as they will, two blocks, or two groups, as they may be called, in these institutions, will, by virtue of the clout and influence such numbers give them, be in a position to serve those sections while serving the entire community as such. The idea probably is that such a course would also lead to a change in the structuring of political parties. The political parties contesting these elections would also be obliged to have a sizable component of backward classes and women which, in turn, is bound to influence their policies and programmes. It cannot be said that this is an unreasonable or impermissible objective. May be that political motivation is also underlying this move; but, when we are living in a political democracy where the political parties run the affairs of State, it is difficult to treat such political motivation as a vitiating factor, more so by itself. I am, therefore, unable to say that the constitutional scheme and spirit prohibits reservation of political offices in favour of any of the four categories. Indeed, one must say that the reservation of political offices is a known and constitutionally recognized concept, which is evident from Articles 330 and 332. To say that besides those reservations no other reservation can be provided in the matter of political offices either by Parliament or by Legislative assemblies may perhaps amount to importing subjective notions into constitutional interpretation. I agree that such reservation should, be a dwindling phenomenonwith the passage of time these features should disappear. I also recognize that the reservation in favour of backward classes and for women (on a much larger scale than before) is being provided 37 years after the Constitution. But according to the Act, it is only a temporary phenomenon to be in force for a period of 10 years. Its continuation beyond that period may, however, invite judicial opprobium. This is also the conclusion arrived at by a Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 2959/79 disposed of on 31-8-1979.

( 26 ) NOW coming to the interpretation of Clause (4) in Article 15, it is well known that it was introduced by way of First Amendment to the constitution as a result ot the decision of the Supreme Court in State of madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan, but that decision only provided the occasion for such amendment. It is not as if by providing Clause (4), the communal G. O. which was struck down in the said decision, was validated or revived. The said decision brought home to the Parliament the necessity of a clause in Art. 15 similar to clause (4) in Art. 16. While making such a provision, the Parliament in exercise of its constituent power thought it desirable to employ language of wide amplitude. It said that nothing in the said Article, or in Art. 29 (2), shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially educationally backward classes of citizens, or for Scheduled Castes, or Scheduled Tribes. The words any and advancement are worthy of notice. So far as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are concerned, it cannot be argued with any reasonableness that the special provision to be made for their advancement should be of a particular nature. It can be provision of any type, and so long as it advances their cause, it will be permissible. If that is so, there is no reason why the said words should be restricted in the case of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, when all the three categories are mentioned together. It would be more reasonable to hold that the expression "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens" is meant only for identifying the particular category. Once the category is identified, any special provision can be made for their advancement. I am not inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioners that the words "socially and educationally backward classes" qualify and restrict the scope and amplitude of the words "any special provision for their advancement". I am. also of the opinion that Art. 15 (4) must be construed in the light of Art. 46 of the constitution. The said Article provides the back-drop and serves to explain the purpose and scope of Art. 15 (4 ).

( 27 ) THIS argument indeed reminds me of the two contending schools of thought on the question of interpretation of the Constitution--a lively controversy now raging across the United States,. viz,, original, intent versus contemporary content. While according to the former school"of thought the Gourt" should always keep in mind" and conform to the intention of the founding fathers while interpreting the constitutional provisions, the latter school says that the Constitution being a permanent document should be made to adapt to changing circumstances and developing exigencies. The former school of thought points out the dangers inherent in the courts and individual Judges introducing their own value-judgments, ideas and ideology in the name of furthering the spirit and scheme of the Constitution. In the words of edwin Meese, the Attorney-General of U. S. , an exponent of this view, the constitution is not "a mirror that simply reflects the thoughts and ideas of those who stand before? . He bemoaned: "an activist jurisprudence, one which anchors the Constitution only in the conscience of the jurists, is a chameleon jurisprudence, changing colour and form in each era". Indeed, according to this school of thought all the leading decisions of the United states Supreme Court starting with Brown, in the field of equal protection of laws and human rights are suspect. The other view is articulated forcefully by Brennan, J. in his address at Georgetown University on October 12, 1985. Said the learned Judge: "the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our. time. For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs". Of course, in Indian context this controveray is not so evident as yet, for the simple reason that our Constitution is not even 40 years old; yet it is useful to bear in mind these contending points of view in the matter of interpretation of the Constitution. Considering all the circumstances, I am of the view that the circumstances and the context in which clause (4) was introduced in Art. 15 should not be taken as restricting its scope and ambit; more so, when the language employed therein, as already emphasized, is of wide amplitude. It is also not possible to agree that such reservations will prove prejudicial to national integrity and unity. This is supposed to be a temporary phenomenon, and any attempt to perpetuate it would, no doubt, meet the disapproval of the courts.

( 28 ) THE position with respect to reservation in favour of women also stands on the same footing. Clause (3) of Art. 15 expressly permits making any special provision for women and children. It is stated in the counter-affidavitand it is also contended by the learned Advocate-General that reservation in favour of women has not been made only on the ground that they are women, but because of the circumstance that the women have not been able to assert themselves and claim their rightful voice and place ia the local bodies. It is for this reason, it is stated, that the Legislature thought it fit to provide for such a reservation, I am inclined to accept the said statement. It cannot be denied that inspite of all that has been said in the Constitution and done by the State all these years, ours is still a male dominated society and the women are yet to achieve their rightful place. Particularly at the grass-roots levelmay be on account of rural atmosphere and the lower level of literacy among womentheir representation is very much below what they deserve. I, uphold the reservation in favour of women.

( 29 ) THE first contention is, accordingly, rejected. II. Valldfty of the Second Proviso to Sec. 5 (2)Reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes :

( 30 ) EXCLUDING the areas covered by Municipal Corporations and municipalities, there are 1080 Revenue Mandals in the State of Andhra pradesh. For each Revenue Mandal a Mandal Praja Parishad is constituted by the Act. Section 5 says that there shall be a President for each Mandal praja Parishad who has to be elected by registered voters in the Mandal from among themselves. The President is elected directly by the registered voters within the Mandal. Rule of reservation has been applied to these offices of Presidents. Reservation is made in favour of Scheduled-Tribes, scheduled-Castes, Women and Backward-Classes in the ratio of 6%, 15%, 9% and 20% respectively. This is the broad principle. But, the manner in which this reservation is provided for in the Act has given rise to a number of controversies.

( 31 ) FOR the purpose of determining the percentage of reservation for each: of the above categories, the ratio which each of these categories bears to the total population, is adopted. According to the 1981 Census figures, the population of scheduled-tribes and scheduled-castes in this State is 5. 93% and 14. 87% respectively which, for the purpose of rule of reservation, is generally taken as 6% and 13% respectively. Though each district is a sepatate unit for applying the rale of reservation, according to the Andhra pradesh Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads (Reservation of offices of President of M. P. Ps. and Chairman of Z. P. Ps.) Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Reservation Rules"), the reservation in each district is made uniformly irrespective of the population of that particular category in a given district. In other words, the ratio of population of each category to the total population of that district is not made the basis, but the State-wide figures. Thus, for example, for scheduled-castes, in each district it is 15%; for women it is 9%, and similarly for backward-classes 20%. Pausing here for a moment, I may notice the case of the State as put forward in the counter-affidavitin so far as it is relevant on this aspect. It is stated therein : "in reply to the various allegations in paras 9, 10, and 11, I state that the total population of the State was taken as the basis in fixing the reservation at 6% and 15% for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled castes respectively. The population of the State is broadly divided between areas covered by Panchayati Raj bodies (Gram Panchayats, mandala Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads) and Municipal bodies (Municipalities and Corporations ). State intended to give reservations to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in both Municipalities and Municipal Corporations as well as Panchayati Raj bodies at the State average instead of calculating averages separately for Municipalities, Municipal Corporations and Panchayati Raj bodies. This provides uniform percentage for all the local bodies in the State. . . . . . . . . . . . The reservations under the Act are based on the population of the respective categories. The various allegations in paragraphs 12. 13, 14 and 15 are baseless. Reservation for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Women and Backward Classes is 6, 15, 9 and 20 percent of the total number of Zilla Praja Parishads. 6% of 22 Zilla Praja Parishads constitutes 1. 32%,and hence rounded off to one. Similarly, 15% of 22 Zilla Praja parisbads constitutes 3. 3% and hence rounded off to 3. 9% of 22 Zilla praja Parishads constitutes 1. 98% and hence rounded off to 2. 20% of 22 Zilla Praja Parishads constitutes 4. 4% and hence rounded off to 4. There is nothing irregular or illegal about this method of arriving at the number of Zilla Praja Parishads to be reserved for these 4 categories. While it is true that the distribution of population of Scheduled tribes, Scheduled-Castes, and Backward Classes is not uniform in all the districts, population belonging to all these three categories are found in all the districts and Mandals. Hence the Legislature thought it fit that people belonging to these categories should have representation in the Mandela Praja Parishads of all the districts. Hence they have decided that uniform percentage or reservation should be given to these categories in all the districts. It will be appropriate to mention here that while reserving Panchayat Samithis under the erstwhile act the same principle was adopted and it has not been declared as inequitable or illegal.

( 32 ) HOWEVER while providing reservation for the Scheduled Tribes a different criteria is folowed which has resulted in excess reservation for this category I shall proceed to explain this aspect: Since the reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes is 6%, they are entitled to 65 Mandals being reserved in their favour, i. e. , 6% of 1080 Mandals. But the actual Mandals reserved for Scheduled Tribes has come to 99 i. e. 34 mandals in excess of their quota This is the result of the combined operation of the two clauses in he second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows:"provided further that six percent of the total number of offices of President in the district shall be reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the following manner, namely : (a) all the offices of President of mandala Praja Parishads constituted for the Mandals wholly situated in tue Scheduled areas of the district, notwithstanding that the number of such offices exceed six per cent oi the total number of offices of President, in the district ; and (b) where the number of offices of President under clause (a) falls short of six per cent of the total number of offices of President in the district such number of offices of President in the non-scheduled areas of the district as are required to make the number of offices of President six per cent of the total number of offices of President in the district; shall be reserved by the District Collector for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the manner prescribed and the mandal praja Parishad in respect of which the office is so reserved in areas other than the Scheduled Areas shall be by rotation and as far as practicable, be the Mandala Praia Parishad where the proportion of the population of Scheduled Tribes to the total population of the mandal is the largest, not being a Mandal which falls within or forms a substantial part of legislative Assembly, Constituency reserved for a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes :-

( 33 ) "scheduled Area" means an area declared to be a scheduled area by the President under Para 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution. Those areas where there is a large concentration of Scheduled Tribes, particularly in hilly regions, have been declared as Scheduled Areas. This has been done with a view to provide certain special protections to theses tribes shall not apply to a Scheduled Area, or shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as he may specify in the notification, dated 6-2-1987 applying clause (a) of the said proviso to scheduled Areas in the State.) Sub-Para (2) of Para 5 empowers the Governor to make Regulations for the peace and good government of any Scheduled Area in a State, and in particular to regulate the transfer of land, allotment of land to the members of Scheduled-Tribes, and the carrying on of the business as money-lenders by persons who lend money to members of scheduled Tribes.

( 34 ) A large part of Khammam District, and substantial parts of visakbapatnam and East Godavari districts are declared as Scheduled Areas by the President. According to the figures supplied to us by the Government, on an aggregate, 25% of the population in the Scheduled Areas are not members of any Scheduled-Tribe. In other words, non-scheduled tribes constitute roughly 25% of the population of the Scheduled Areas of the State.

( 35 ) NOW, according to the second proviso to Section 5 (2) of the Act, (i) six per cent of the Mandals in each district shall be reserved for the scheduled-Tribes; (it) all the Mandals wholly situated within the Scheduled Area in a district shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding that the number so reserved exceeds 6% and (iii) if the Mandals so reserved (falling wholly within Scheduled Area) fall short of 6% of the total number of mandals in that district, such number of offices of the President in the non- scheduled area of the district as are required to make up the number of offices of President to 6% of the total number, shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It would be immediately evident that while adopting the population as the basis, as a general, rule, a departure is made in case of districts containing Scheduled Areas. In case of these districts, the basis is the geographical area and not the population. There are 47 Mandals wholly situated within the Scheduled Areas in the State. The break-up of this figure is :khammam. . 22 (out of 46);yisakhapatnam. . 11 (out of 39);east Godavari. . 7 (out of 57) ;adilabad. . . 5 (out of 51 );west Godavari. . 2 (out ot 46) ;in the first four districts, since the number of Mandals within the scheduled Area is far above 6% of the total number of Mandals in the district, they are retained undisturbed. In West Godavari district, the number of Mandals to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes is 3 (according to 6%), whereas only 2 Mandals are situated wholly within the Scheduled Area. Hence one Mandal from the non-scheduled area in the district is added to make the number reserved for Scheduled Tribes as ,3, Now, in all other districts in the State there are no Scheduled Areas at all. Even there, 6% of the Mandals in the district are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It is in this manner that 99 Mandals have come to be reserved for Scheduled-Tribes as against 65 Mandate to which the Scheduled-Tribes are entitled proportional to their population in the State. It is this excessive reservation which it attacked in these writ petitions.

( 36 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners urged the following contentions. (i) according to the provisions in the Constitution as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court, reservation in favour of Scheduled-Tribes and scheduled Castes should be proportionate to their population vis-a-vis the total population of the State, which means that 65 Mandate ought to have been reserved for Scheduled-Tribes. But, the second proviso to Section 5 (2) of the Act has the effect of reserving 50% more Mandals for Scheduled Tribes than they are entitled to. This excessive reservation in fayour of Scheduled tribes has resulted in diminution in the number of seats reserved for Scheduled castes on the basis of their population: it has also resulted in diminution in the number of seats reserved for women, backward-classes, and opencompetition. This is clearly unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable: (ii) the total reservation of all the offices of Presidents of Mandals situated wholly within the Scheduled Areas in favour of Scheduled Tribes is violatrve of Art. i 5 (1) of the Constitution and is not saved by clause (4) thereof, even if it is assumed that Art. 15 permits reservation of political officer is favour of the said categories. This has the effect of depriving the non-scheduled tribes in Scheduled Areas permanently front seeking the office of the President of the Mandal. There are Assembly constituencies also wholly situated within the Scheduled Areas, but the Constitution does not provide that all such constituencies should be reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The second proviso to Section 5 (2) of the Act, in effect, amounts to double reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribes. (Reliance is placed upon a Bench decision of this Court in R. V. Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1982)-1, APLJ. , p. 1871982 (1) ALT 337. , fof this proposition): and (iii) application of a different rule of reservation for Scheduled tribes vis-a-vis other reserved categories is discriminatory and unreasonable; such a distinction has no relation to the object of the enactment, and hence is violatrve of Articles 14 arid 15 of the Constitution.

( 37 ) ON the other hand, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State urged the following contentions. (a) the right to contest tor the office of President of a Mandal is not a fundamental right; it is only a right given by the statute and is, therefore, subject to such qualifications, reservations and limitations as the statute may provide. Neither Art. 14, nor Art. 15 is attracted in this behalf; it is open to the Legislature to provide such percentage of reservation for a given category, as it thinks appropriate, and the petitioners have no right to make any grievance; calling such reservation as double-reservation or excessive reservation is. misleading and misconceived; (b) Inasmuch as the Governor has, by notification issued under para 5 (1) of the Fifth Schedule, applied and extended the provisions of the act to Scheduled Areas in the State, all the Mandals situated within the scheduled Areas become reserved for Scheduled Tribes exclusively. Such a notification prevails notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Constitution, including the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-Ill. No question, therefore, of any discrimination or excessive reservation can arise in such a situaticn, nor is the said notification liable to be tested on the touch-stone of articles 14 and 15. The provision of 6% of Mandals for Scheduled Tribes in other districts in the State cannot also be challenged by the petitioner on any ground; (c) The petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petitions. They are not residents within a scheduled area; they are residents of districts in which there is no Scheduled Area; none of their rights are infringed by the impugned proviso;

( 38 ) THE Act is referable to Entry 5 in List-II (State List) of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 5 reads. "local Government, that is to say, the Constitution and powers of Municipal Corporation Improvement Trusts, District Boards, mining settlement authorities, and other local authorities for the purpose of local-self Government, or village administration". Section 2 (b) defines "backward Classes" to mean "any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens recognized by the Government for purposes of clause (4) of Art. 15 of the Constitution of India". Section 2 (o) ascribes to the expressions 'scheduled Castes' and 'scheduled Tribes' the same meaning as is assigned to them in Clauses (24) and (25) of Art. 366 of the Constitution of India.

( 39 ) I am unable to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate-General that inasmuch as the right to franchise is a creature of the statute-and not a fundamental or common-law right, it is open to the Legislature to subject it to such limitations and qualifications as it likes and that no one has a right to complain. Nor am I able to appreciate his contention that such a statute (conferring the right of franchise) is not answerable to, nor need it satisfy the, provisions in Part-III. It is difficult to envisage an act of State Legislature which cannot be questioned on the ground of violation of art. 14. After all, Art. 14 has been held to be a basic postulate of our constitution. We put a question to the learned Advocate-General whether it is open to the State Ligislature to say that all the offices of Presidents of all the Mandals in the State shall be filled only by the members of Scheduled tribes. He had to, agree that it is not. At a later point of discussion, however, i must point out fairly, the learned Advocate-General did not persist with this argument. He agreed that the impugned provision is liable to be tested on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 15. He however qualified it by paying that the notification issued by the Governor under the Fifth Schedule is not liable to be so tested.

( 40 ) ART. 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of jaws. Art-15 is a facet of Article 14, prohibiting discrimination between 9 citizen and a citizen on certain grounds. Clause (4) of Art. 15 was understood to be an exception to clause (I) of Art. 15 until the decision of the supreme Court in State of Kerala N. M. Thomas. In Thomas, however, clause (4) was held by the majority not to be an exception to clause (1), but only an emphatic way of stating what is implicit in clause (1 ). It was held that clause (1) of Art. 15 permits reasonable classification, and that a provision in favour of weaker sections of the society can be made under clause (1) itself, apart from clause (4 ). But, as observed by a Full Bench of this Court in V. Narayana Rao and another State of A. P. [w. P. 9457/86/batch 4, 5-9-1986], whether the reservation made is referable to clause (4) or clause (1), it has to be reasonable, and is liable to be tested on the touch-stone of reasonableness. At all points of time, similar reservation in political offices was sought to be justified by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 15 (4) only. In W. P. NO. 2959/1979 and Batch, disposed of on 31-8-1979, (arising under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, the predecessor of the present Act,) the State of Andhra Pradesh successfully contended that the words "any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes" occurring in clause (4) of Art. 15, extended to, and empowered the State to provide for reservation even in political offices. The Division Bench upheld the State's contention. Similarly, in another batch of writ petitions (arising under the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act) in R. V. Satyanareyana vs. State of A. P. , AIR 1976, S. C, p. 490 supra the State again sought to justify the total reservation of offices of Surpanchas of Gram Panchayats wholly situated within the Scheduled Areas in favour of Scheduled Tribes with reference to, and under Art. 15 (4), though unsuccessfully, As far back as 1953, when reservation of political offices in favour of women was challenged, it was su'tained with reference to clause (3) of Art. 15; Indeed, in Nain Sukh Das vs. V. P. State, AIR 1953, S. C, 384. it has been held by the Supreme Court that the constitutional mandate in Art. 15 (1) "clearly extends to political as well as to other rights". On that basis it was held that an election held to a local authority on the basis of separate communal electorates is violative of Article 15 (1 ).

( 41 ) THE learned Advocate-General contended that scheduled-castes and scheduled-tribes have been held by the Supreme Court as not falling within the expression "castes" occurring in Art. 15 (1) and Art. 16 (2 ). True it is that it is so held; but it is nowhere held that a reservation made in favour of socially and educationally backwardclasses of citizens, or Scheduled Castes, or Scheduled-Tribes, is not a provision within the meaning of Art. 15 (4), or for that matter, Art. 16 (4) of the Constitution, nor it has been held that such reservations need not satisfy the test of reasonableness pervading Articles 1. 4 to 16. Above all, this is not the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. On the contrary, the said reservation is sought to be justified with reference to Art. 15 (4) only. Paragraph 3 (at page 2 of the counter-affidavit) reads as follows:-"the contention that Articles 15 (3) and 15 (4) of the Constitution of India do not enable the State to provide for reservation for women, backward classes of citizens, scheduled-castes, and scheduled- tribes in the offices of the Presidents of the Mandal Praja Parishads is unsustainable. The State is not prevented from making any special provision for women, as well as for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizen, Scheduled Castes and scheduled-Tribes. These clauses should not be construed in a restrictive seme as applicable only to educational advancement. ". Again in paragraph 2 it is averred :"the contention in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that there cannot be any reservations in the offices of the President and Chairman of the local Body, and that it is not saved by Article 15 (3) and (4) of the constitution of India is unsustainable for the reasons mentioned supra. "for the above reasons, I am Of the opinion that the reasonableness of the impugned proviso is liable to be tested under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution of India.

( 42 ) ARTICLES 330 and 332 of the Constitution provide for reservation in the Lok Sabha and the State Legislatures in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Both these Articles say that the number of seats reserved for these categories shall be in proportion to their population vis-a-vis the total population 'of the State It is true that neither clause (2) of art. 330 nor clause (3) of Art. 332 expressly provides that reservation shall hot be in excess of,-or for that matter, less than-such proportion, bat that this is the spirit and meaning of the provision would be evident if we contrast the language employed in clause (2) of Art. 330 with the language employed in clause (3) thereof, and similarly contrast the language employed in clause (3) of rt. 332 with the language employed in clause (4) thereof. They read as follows :-"330. (1) xx xx xx xx (2) The number of seats reserved in any State or Union territory for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes under clause (1) shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seates allotted to that State or Union territery in the House of the people as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or Uuion territory or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or Union territory or part of the State or Union territory, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State or Union territory. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (2), the number of seats reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam. shall bear to the total number of seats allotted to that State a proportion not less than the population of the Scheduled Tribes in the said autonomous districts bears to the total population of the State, explanation : In this article and in article 332, the expression "population" means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. Provided that the reference in this Explanation to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, until the relevant figures for the first census taken after the year 2000 have been published, be construed as a reference to the 1971 census". "332. (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats' in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of the State, as the case may, be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State. (4) The number of seats reserved for an autonomous district in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats in that Assembly a proportion not less than the population of the district bears to the total poplation of the State". White in the case of clause (3) Article 330 and clause (4) of Article 332 the words used are "hot less than" the proportion, the language used in clause (2) of Article 330 and clause (3) of Article 332 is "the same proportion" as their population vis-a-vts the total population. In other words, in the case of Article 330 (3) and Article 332 (4) the ratio provided is the minimmu, which means, it can also go up, while in the case of Article 330 (2) and art. 332 (3) the ratio is the same as their proportion to the total population ; neather more nor less. In my opinion, the principle implicit in these claims should be taken as the Standard of reasonableness on the question before, as. It must be remembered that reservation provided by these two Articles was conceived as a temporary measure, which is evident from the fact that initially article 334 provided that these reservations shall be in force only for a period of 10 years from the date of commencement of the Constitution-which, no doubt, has been extended from time to time. (At present they cannot go beyond 1990 ). Can it be said in such a situation that it would be reasonable for the State' to provide for reservation 50% in excess of their population vis-a-vis the total population? The Supreme Court has recognized in some dicision that reservation in favour 6f Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes under Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) ought to be in proportion to their population; but, it has not been held by the Supreme Court so far that reservation can be provided in excess of their population, Right from balaji's case (8), it has 'been emphasized that a reservation made under Art. 15 (4) or Article 16 (4) should not be Unreasonable, excessive or extravagant, and that generally the reservations put together in favour of all the categories, should not exceed 50% of the total, This principle has been recently. affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 9457 of 1986 and batch disposed of on 5-9-1986 (8-A) (reported in 1986- (2) A. L. T. :p. 258 in this case, it would be seen that while the population of Scheduled Tribes constitutes 5. 93% of the total, population of the State, the, reservation now made in their favour goes to 9. 18%. The reservation made in their fovour is more than 50% in excess, of their population. As against 65 Mandals to which they are entitled according to their population,. 99 Mandals have been, reserved for them. This cannot but be called excessive reservation. It is the result of the, double-reservation provided in the second proviso.

( 43 ) THIS question can be looked at from a different angle as well. Could the Legislature have said that though Scheduled Tribes constitute only 6% of the total population, reservation in their favour shall be 10%? in such a situation too, the number of Mandals reserved for them would be. approximately same. I think not. If so, what cannot be directly done, cannot also be done indirectly. It should be remembered, that the question of reservations is partly a political decision as well. Suppose, a given, political partly in power wants to win over Scheduled Castes and as a sop, it says that as against their population of 15%, they shall be provided 23% pf the Mandals, reserved for them. These are the pitfalls once a departure is made from the principle of some proportion". The principle of proportionate representation, contained in Articles 330 and 332, is a highly salutary and wise decision, besides being eminently reasonable.

( 44 ) I should not be understood as saying that the reservation of all the Mandals situated within the Scheduled Are as in favour of Scheduled. Tribes is bad. Having regard to the peculiar sitecation obtaining therein, this reservation may be quite justified. What I am saying is that the total reservation in the State in favour of Scheduled Tribes should not exceed 6% which approximates to their population - 5. 93% of the total. In certain exigencies, even a couple of Mandals more than 65 may be reserved, but as a general rule, the principle must be the same as is contained in Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution, I must repeat that the State has repeatedly asserted that for determining and applying the rule of reservation it is taking the 'entire State as one unit, and that for the sake of uniformity it is providing for uniform reservations in all the districts' irrespective of their proportion, in each district population. it was perfectly open to the Legislature to say that all the 47 Mandals situated within the Scheduled Areas shall be reserved for Scheduled Tribes; it would still leave them with 18 Mandals which they could have equally 'or equitable distributed among the remaining; 18 districts. In this manner, each district will have one. Mandal reserved for scheduled Tribes, while in those districts where Scheduled Tribes are in substantial number, i. e. , where there are Scheduled Areas, they get a lion's share. For example, in Khammam district the Scheduled Tribes constitute about 26. 23% of the total population, according to the figures furnished by the learned Advocate-General; yet, they are getting 22 out of 46 Mandals (i. e. , practically 46-47% of the total number of Mandale in that district ). May be this is necessary to protect them in Scheduled Areas, but, if that is the object, there is no reason to provide 6% representation to Scheduled tribes in those districts where their population is far below 6%. I reconize that it is for the Legislature to prescribe the manner in which the rule of reservation should be operated, and that it is not for the Court to say so. All that I am saying is that the reservation should be proportionate,to their population in the State. How to apply the rule of reservation and where, is for the Legislature to decide. It can either equally distribute the same in all the districts irrespective of the popoulation of Scheduled Tribes as is done in the case of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, or it can reserve all the Mandals in Scheduled Areas, and distribute the balance among the remaining districts, or adopt some other method. The overall limitation is that it should operate within the figure of 65 Mandals to which the scheduled Tribes are entitled, according to their population.

( 45 ) ANOTHER result of such excessive reservation in favour of scheduled Tribes is that the Scheduled-Castes are also deprived of their due representation. 1 he 34 Mandals reserved for Scheduled Tribes in excess of their due share has resulted in corresponding diminution of the Mandals reserved for Scheduled-Castes, Backward Classes, and women, besides the open competition category, of course. It is this excessive reservation which i find unreasonable and arbitrary. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 which provides for such excessive and double reservation must, accordingly, be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, and thus violative of Article 15 (4) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 46 ) I am unable to see how the notification issued by the Governor under Para 5 of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution comes to the rescue of the State. The notification issued by the Governor applies only to the scheduled Areas, Indeed, the Act applies to Scheduled Areas too, by its own force. It is not as if a notification by the Governor is necessary to make the Act applicable to Scheduled Areas. The power of the Governor under para 5 of the Fifth Schedule is to say that an Act, whether made by parliament or the State Legislature, shall not apply to a practicular scheduled Area, or that it shall be applicable with such exceptions and modifications, as he may specify, Therefore, the notification issued by the governor in this case merely stating that clause (a) of the said proviso applies to Scheduled Areas, is of little consequence. It is not as if the scheduled Areas are separted from the concerned district, nor is a separate zilla Praja Parishad being constituted for such Areas. All the Presidents of the Mandals in Scheduled Areas become members of Zilla Praja Parishad of that district. The Scheduled Areas continue to be treated as parts of the stafe, which is treated as one unit for determining the extent and proportion of representation for each category. Even otherwise, the position would not be different. If the Scheduled Areas are sought to be excluded from the state by any process of reasoning, then it is obvious that the population of scheduled Tribes in the remaining parts of the State will be far below 6% and the 6% reservation provided in their favour in districts (not having Scheduled areas) would again suffer from execessive reservation.

( 47 ) THOUGH it is not strictly necessary for the purpose of this case,, I may briefly touch upon the interpretation of the non-obstante clause"notwithstandiag anything in this Constitution"with which Para 5 of Fifth Schedule opens. The contention of the learned Advocate-General is that by virtue of this clause, any notification issued by the Governor under the Fifth Schedule cannot be challenged even on the ground of violation of Part III of the constitution. Reliance is placed upon the Bench decision of this Court in nagabhushanam vs. Secretary to. Government, AIR 1965, A. P. 3321964 (2) ALT 424, and the decision of a learned single Judge in G. Ramadass vs. Union of India, 1971 (II), An. W. R. 261 I am, however, unable to agree with the proposition. The said clause must be understood in its context and its field delineated having regard to its object; Since Para 5 gives the Governor the power to say that any Act of Parliament or State Legislature shall not apply to a scheduled Area (which otherwise applies) or to say that such Act shall apply with such exceptions or modifications as he may specify-an extraordinary and unusual powersuch a clause was found necessary. But for the said nonobstante clause, any such notification of the Governor would be clearly unconstitutional. But this does not mean that even Part-Ill of the constitution ceases to be applicable to Scheduled Area. On this aspect, I am in agreement with the reasoning of another Bench of this Court in r. V. Saiyanarayana vs. State of A. P. (supra) where they agree with the reasoning of thfc Bombay High Court in Mansingh vs. State, (1968) 70, Bom. L. R. 654. I, accordingly, disagree with the Bench decision in Nagabhushanam vs. Scretary to Government (supra) and G. Ramadass vs. Union of India (supra ). Indeed, holding part-III inapplicable would be counter-productive and not conducive to good administration of Scheduled Areas.

( 48 ) I am also unable to see any substance in the argument that the petitioners have no locus standi to raise this contention. W. P. No. 17536/86 was filed even before the Act came into force. Amending Act No. 3 of 1987 was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature and became law on 1-2-1987. Other writ petitions were filed within a few days thereafter. The notification reserving the mandals for various categories was issued pending these writ petitions, because this Court was not inclined to stay the election process at the initial stage. The petitioners are from districts where there is no Scheduled area; they are also from those districts where there are Scheduled Areas. Right to contest and right to vote for the candidate of their choice is being interfered with by the impugned provision. Any voter in a Revenue Mandal or a district, can challenge such excessive reservation. Moreover, when the earlier writ petitions were filed the petitioners could not have known or predicated which mandals. are going to be reserved and for whom. The notifications reserving the mandals were issued after they were filed. In any event, some writ petitions have been filed after the reservation notifications have been issued. This excessive reservation affects every registered voter in the district because, but for this excessive reservation, the very pattern of reservation would be different. A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 5 makes this clear. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Judges' case (S. P. Gupta's Case) and the venous decisions rendered at the instance of social workers/social organizations, the argument based on locus standi sounds hollow. It is only a factor which the Court must take into consideration when deciding whether to interfere in the matter under Article 226. Having regard to the general nature of the problem and its effect, I am inclined to act under Art. 226 of the constitution of India.

( 49 ) I am however unable to see any substance in the argument that the reservation in certain districts is exceeding 50%. Once the State is treated as one unit for determining the extent of reservation in favour of each category, some peculiar situations have arisen. The particular situation in khamman and Visakhapatnam districts is the result of the reservation of all the mandals in Scheduled Areas in favour of Sched uled Tribes. I have already held the said reservation to be valid. It is true that for applying the rule of reservation a district is treated as the unit, but so far as the extent of reservation is concerned the State-wide figures are being taken. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the contention that the reservation of Mandals in Khammam and Visakhapatnam districts should be struck down as being beyond 50%. I may also add that the existence of Scheduled Areas has given rise to an exceptional situation. III. Validity of Explanation-2 to Section 5 (2) of the Act (Population figures gathered in the socio-economic survey conducted by the Corporation bring made the basis):

( 50 ) SO far as the third contention urged by the petitioners is concerned, I agree with the opinion of my learned brother, Jagannadha Rao, J. wherein he has elaborately dealt with this question. I agree with him that though the survey conducted by the Corporation is defective in several particulars and cannot be taken as disclosing a correct picture or correct population figures of Backward classes in the total population of the State, interference is not called for in the particular circumstaces of this case. Indeed, there is no time to rectify the detects therein. By the date the arguments were closed and this Court discovered the defects in the said survey, the date for publication of the list of valid nominations too had passed by. For the above reason, and also because this report is being relied upon only for a limited purpose, we do not think it would be proper to set aside the entire election process throughout the State on this ground. If, however, this survey is sought to be made the basis for any other election hereafter, it shall not be so used unless it is published first, objections invited, considered and after necessary enquiry, if any, published finally. I should not also be understood as either affirming the truth of the said figures or the validity of the said survey. IV. Denial of Right of franchise to voters residing in the notified areas and townships:

( 51 ) ACCORDING to Explanation-2 to Section 5 (2), that is, for applying the rule of reservation, only "the population in the areas included in any municipal Corporation, Municipality or a Cantonment shall be excluded". Since the notified areas and townships do not fall within the expression "municipal Corporation", "municipality", or "cantonment", their population is taken into account for the purpose of applying the rule of reservation. It is also not in dispute that the local bodies also carry on certain developmental activities within such notified areas and townships. The argument now built up is that while treating the population of these notified areas and townships as population within the mandal for all purposes, the denial of right to vote to the voters residing within such notified areas and townships is discriminatory and arbitrary. Though I was impressed by the argument, I find on deeper scrutiny that the said contention does not merit acceptance.

( 52 ) THE right to vote is given only to those voters who are included in the voters list published under Sec. 14-C of the A. P. Gram Panchayats Act. The voters within the notified areas and townships are denied the right to vote because they are not registered voters in a Gram Panchayat under Section 14-C, for the simple reason that their area is not included in any Gram panchayat; but, there is a qualitative difference. Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 22 and Clauses (iv), (vii) and (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 33 make it clear that the Mandal Praja Parishad is empowered, with the prior approval of the Zilla Praja Parishad, to levy contributions from the funds of the Gram Pancbayat within the Mandal. Mandal Praja Parishad is also empowered to levy a surcharge upon any tax imposed by the Gram Panchayat, or on land cess, or local cess levied by Gram Panchayat. These contributions and surcharge constitute, among others, the income of the Mandal. No such provision exists vis-a-vis the notified areas and townships. In other words, the Mandal Praja Parishad cannot impose any such contribution or surcharge on the funds of, or within the areas covered by notified areas and townships. I am, therefore, unable to say that the voters within these townships and notified areas are situated similarly with the voters in the Gram panchayats, or that the denial of right of franchise to the voters within such areas is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. This contention is, accordingly, rejected.

( 53 ) V. Validity of the last proviso to sob-section (1) of Section 44. This aspect has been dealt with by my learned brother, Jagannadha kao, J. in his opinion, and I fully agree with his views on this aspect. It is not necessary for me to add anything further. VI. Conclusion:

( 54 ) I may now summarize my conclusions : (i) Reservation of political offices in favour of Scheduled Tribes, scheduled Castes, women, and Backward Classes cannot be held to be unconstitutional or impermissible ; (ii) the excessive and disproportionate reservation in favour of scheduled Tribes resulting from the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act is unreasonable and violative of Art. 15 (4) and Art. 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the portions typed in capital letters (printed in italics) herein below in the said second proviso are struck down as being unreasonable and disproportionate :"provided further that six per cent of the total number of offices of President in the District shall be reserved for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the following manner, namely : (a) all the offices of President of Mandala Praja Parishads constituted for the Mandals wholly situated in the Scheduled Areas of the district, Notwithstanding that the number of such Offices exceed six per cent of the total number or Offices of President in the District; and (b) where the number of offices of President under clause (a) falls short of six per cent of the total number of offices of President In the district such number of offices of President in the non-scheduled areas of the District as are required to make the number of offices of President six per cent of the total number of offices of President In the district; shall be reserved by the District Collector for the members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the manner prescribed ; and the mandala Praja Parishad in respect of which the office is so reserved in areas other than the Scheduled Areas shall be by rotation and as far as practicable, be the Mandala Praja Parishad where the proportion of the population of Scheduled Tribes to the total population of the mandal is the largest, not being a mandal which falls within or forms a substantial part of Legislative Assembly Constituency reserved for a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribes ". After striking down the aforesaid words, the proviso still remains operational and effective. The interim order made by the Full Bench on 27-2-1987 is he rewith confirmed, having regard to the particular facts and circumstances of this case. (iii) The challenge to the validity of the other provisions of the Act fails. It is also riot possible to give a direction to include the voters within the notified areas, or townships, in the list of registered voters. '' 39. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed in part, in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

( 55 ) MY learned brother B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. has framed five points for consideration. I shall be dealing in my judgment with the points III and v enumerated therein. So far as points I, II and IV are concerned, I agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother b. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. in the separate judgment prepared by him,-

( 56 ) I shall first deal with point V and then with point III. Point V :validity of the last proviso to sub-section (1) of See. 44 :

( 57 ) THIS point deals with the validity of reservations and the proportion 2:2:1 mentioned in Sec, 44 of the Act,

( 58 ) IN Writ Petition No. 1996/1987, one of the points urged by the learned counsel fir the petitioner, Sri M. R. K. Choudary is that the amendment made to Section 44 of the Act by Andhra Pradesh Act 3 of 1987 in so far as it related to the division of the State into three geographical arens as "coastal Andhra", "telangana" and "rayalaseema" and in prescribing a ratio of reservations between the three regions as 2:2:1 is ultra vires of articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

( 59 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating this contention, it is necessary to refer to Section 44 of the Act as it stands after the amendment : section 44 :election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and term of office : (1) For every Zilla Praja Parishad there shall be a Chairman who shall be elected, subject to the provisions of Sec. 9, by the registered voters in the District from among them selves and a Vice- chairman who shall be elected by the members of the Zilla Parishad, among themselves : provided that a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State house of 'parliament : provided further that six percent of the total number of offices of chairman in the State shall be reserved by the Government by rotation, from term to term, for the members belonging to the Scheduled tribes in the manner Described ; so however that the district in respect of which, the Office of Chairman is so reserved shall, as far as practicable be the district where the proportion of the population of the Scheduled Tribes to the total population of the district is the largest: provided also that fifteen percent of the total number of offices of chairman in the State shall be reserved by the Government, by rotation, from term to term, for the members belonging to the Scheduled castes in the manner prescribed ; so however, that atleast one office of Chairman is reserved in each of the three regions of the State consisting of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseona and the district in respect of which the office of Chairman is so reserved shall, as far as possible, be the district where the proportion of the population of the Scheduled Castes to the total population of the district is the largest: provided also that nine percent of the total number of Offices of chairman in the State shall be reserved by the Government, by rotation, from term to term, for women in the manner prescribed ; so however that not more than one office of Chairman is reserved in each of the three regions of the State consisting of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema and the district in respect of which the office of Chairman is unreserved shall, as far as practicable, be the district total where the proportion of the population the to the population of the district is the largest: provided also that after the offices of Chairman are reserved for scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and women in that order as aforesaid, twenty percent of the total number of offices of Chairman in the state shall be reserved by the Government, by rotation, from term to term, for Backward Classes in the manner prescribed; so however, that atleast one office of Chairman is reserved in each of the three regions of the State consisting of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and rayalaseema and the district in respect of which the Office of Chairman is so reserved shall, as far as practicable, be the district where the proportion of the population of the Backward Classes to the population of the district is the largest: provided also that the reservaricn of office of the Chairman to all the categories put together shall be in the ratio of 2:2:1 in respect of the three regions of State, namely, Coastal Andhra, Telangana, rayalaseema, respectively. Explanation :for the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that (i) the office of Chairman of the Zilla Praja Parishad of a district for which Zilla Parishad was constituted under the repealed andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 shall not be reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the first ordinary elections to be conducted under this Act if the office of Chairman of such Zilla Parishad was reserved for the same category in the ordinary elections held to such Zilla Parisbad immediately prior to the commencement of this Act; (ii) for reserving the office of Chairman to the members belonging to the backward Classes the population figures of the Backward classes gathered in the socio-economic survey conducted by the andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Co-operative Finance Corporation limited,. Hyderabad, shall be taken as the basis ; (Hi) for purposes of this sub-section the population in the areas included in any Municipal Corporation, Municipality or a Cantonment shall be excluded ; (iv) The expression "coastal Andhra" shall mean the region comprising the Srikakulam, Viziauagaram, Visakbapatnam, East godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam and Nellore districts, the expression 'telangana' shall mean the region comprising the Mahbubnagar, rangareddy, Medak, Nizamahad. Adilabad, Karimnagar, warangal, Khammam and Nalgonda districts and the expression 'rayalaseema' shall mean the region comprising the Kurnool, Cud- dapah, Anantapur and Chittoor Districts". A reading of the above amended Section 44 would reveal that 6 percent of the total number of offices of the Chairman in the State shall be reserved by the Government by rotation from term to term for the members of the scheduled Tribes ; similarly 15 percent of the said offices shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes; 9 per cent shall be reserved for women and 20 percent for Backward Classes. The above percentage of reservation for the Scheduled tribes, Scheduled Castes, Women and Backward Classes is however directed to be restricted to the districts in which the population of the particular reserved category is the largest. The reservation is also conditioned by the requirement, in so far as Scheduled Castes are concerned that atleast one office of Chairman is reserved in each of the three regions of the State consisting of Coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema, and so far as Women are concerned, by the further requirement that not more than one office of chairman is reserved in each of the said three regions; and also by the further requirement that atleast one office of Chairman is reserved for Backward classes in each of the said three regions, in addition to the above conditions, it is further necessary that the reservation of offices of Chairman to all che categories i. e. SI, SC, women and BC put together, shall be in the ratio of 2:2:1 in respect of these three regions of the State, viz. , "coastal andhra", "telangana" and "rayalaseema" respectively.

( 60 ) EXPLANATION (iv) defines the Coastal Andhra as consisting of 9 districts enumerated therein, "telangana" as 9 districts enumerated tnereim and "rayalaseema" shall mean the lour district enumerated therein. The above mode of reservation is however subject to explanation (i) to Section 44 which stales that if under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis ana Zilia parishads Act, 1939 any particular Zilla Parishad stood reserved tor Scheduled castes or for Scheduled Tribes, the same shall not be reserved during the first ordinary elections to oe conducted under the present Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M. R. K. Choudary is that it is not permissible to divide the State, in a constitutional sense, into three regions "coastal Andhra", "telangana" and "rayalaseema" and that the entire State is to be treated as one unit. He pointed out that when for purposes of representations in the services, the State was sought to be divided into Telangana and Non-Telangana regions under Art. 16 (3) by the law made by Parliament, the same was struck down by the supreme Court in Narsimha Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR. 1970 SC 422. Thereafter there was considerable litigation in the State of Andhra Pradesh that even the Act made by Parliament was struck down the old Mulki rules revived and thereafter Parliament stepped in and repealed the Mulki rules and consequent to the same, Art. 371-D was introduced in the Constitution by making special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different paits of the State. In that context, the President had issued a presidential Order creating seven zones in the State for purposes of representation in services. It is argued that but for the fact that the said provision is made by way of an amendment to the Constitution itself, the special provision for different parts of the State would have been unconstitutional and contrary to Art. 16 (1) as well as Art. 16 (3) in view of the decision of the supreme Court in Narasimha Rao's case (1 ). If, it is argued, such a division of the State into different parts was not permissible by way of any Act of Parliament and could only be done by an amendment to the Constitutio of India, the division of State into three regions 'coastal Andhra', Telangana and 'rayalaseema' in Sec. 44 of the Act similarly offends Art. 14 a well as Art. 15 (1 ).

( 61 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by the learned Advocate-General that if the said division of the State into three parts was not made and a proportional represensation for the three regions as 2:2:1 is not made, there will not be any equitable representation for the reserved groups in the three areas. It is pointed out that but for the amendment and prescription of ratio of 2:2:1, the ten Zilla Parishads which are reserved for the various categories would all fall in the 'coastal Andhra' and Telangana' regions whereas none of the four Zilla Parishads in 'rayalaseema' would be reserved for any of the reserved categories. The learned Advocate-General contends that this division of the State into three geographical regions is valid even under Art. 14, 15 (1), Art. 12 (4) and Art. 38 (2) of the Constitution of Iadia.

( 62 ) AT the outset, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of constitution of India contained in Articles 14 and 15. "art. 14 ; Equality before law :the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the terraory of India. Art. 15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth : (1) The State shall not discriminate against any caizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any ol them. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to (a) access to shops, public restaurants, holds, and places of public entertainment ;or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. (4) Nothing is this article or in clause (2) of Art. 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for toe advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes".

( 63 ) THE division of the State under Section 44 into three regions viz. , "coastal Andbra", "telangana" and "rayalaseema" is sought to be justified by the learned Advocate General under A. 14 as well as under Art. 15 (1) and (4) of toe Constitution. He has argued, as already stated, that if the regional representation for the three arrears is not made, all the reserved categories would fall in the "coastal Andhra" area and in the "telangana" area and that there would be no Zilla Parishad among the lour rits to be reserved either for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Women or backward Classes. For the purpose of understanding the above situation, it would be convenient to refer to the tabular statements furnished by the learned advocate General showing the population percentages in various districts for the Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes, Women and Backward Classes and also the comparative reservation position (a) if Sec. 44 of the Act is not applied and (b) if Sec. 44 of the Act is applied.