Karnataka High Court
Sri L Jayaram vs Delimitation Commission on 19 June, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
.2.
MA 40 YRS, EX~COUN(3iLOR, WARD N0. . ' 2
K.i2.PURA C.M.C., R/O NO.62'7/ 1, Bzzfizzi-0- .. fr. » " '
HELICOPTOR I)}.VIS1ON, ANNfi;S)XN'DR APALYA" ._
EX'I'N., VIMANAPURA POST, BANGA¥.,ORE-i-7§'*-
5 SMT. ANUSUYA GAJ$NB.§~E£\__,
w/0 SR! V.GAa}ENDRA, . '
EVA 42 YRS, EX--COUNCI}..OE2, WARD No.26,
I{.R.PURA C.M.C., 1:210 no-.19--.9134;-~.._ '
4TH CROSS, H.A.L.' §:'0Lo:~aY,._ V --«
MARATHAHALLI POST; - BAN§:mLOR%E:3'?_.V
V H vV;..«V:.:P:i§3"f¥ITIONERS
(ByM/ s VA(§rI3§\(l
MD.
1 Di;r,L1rs»11?1;A?1*:on§:' 'C(}'£v>ITNivISSI:ON,
REP. BY s*m*E..EL.EcTx0N COMMISSIONER,
Ex-o'FEI%c10"MEMBEP., BANGALORE.
2 _J3L':3cTIoN.::§Or$;1zs/iissijpu,
._ ;v'{E:"( }3_E1_,m' _____
~_ 3 REP, Brxfifs SECRETARY
I ifHfi::":5?m?rji3--:'o12' KARNATAKA,
K "REP. EEY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
"'««._VI£_}H:§,I'¢'A soumm, BANGALORE-O1.
T THELUNION OFINDIA,
~ BY iTS SECRETARY, HOME
" DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI.
RESPONDENTS
" jéy Sri. RAMESH 13. ANNAPPANAVAR, AGA FOR R3, SR1: KRISHNA S.DlXI'I' FOR' R1 35 2; ARAVIND KUMAR FOR R4; HEGDE 8:. RAO FOR 13- 1) 1% -3- THIS Wm' PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR'I'I.~(~',~LEj§S__'_.226_ "
as 227 OF THE'. CONSTITUTION 0? iNDIA P§aAYINt3VVI_"Trj'------I I- STRIKE DOWN AND DECLAREARTICLE 329V..(~e'.I}--...<3Ié§"~'rIIE'-« CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS uNcoI$JSI*ITUT§0NAL,';,As"IfI~Iz»3--._ ' SAME IS VIQLATIVE OF 'THE BASI-gc: sTRUc'.¥_'U-REV._GI«fVTII$ V CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3 IT TAKE':.SAWA'{ TI'{E".IUDIxii¥ALV.:
REVIEW TO CHALLENGE THE; VALIDITY OF,."_;AANY° LAW? RELATING TO THE DELIMITATIQN 01% cQNsTIT;IEIs:,CIEs E"I'C., MADE UNDER ARTICLE-. 32? on 3.2% {IF THE CONSTITUTION OFINBIA.
THIS WRIT PE*rIT1'04I§I'iI"x':Q:saIra;{; PRELIMINARY HEARiNG (I3-GROUP) THIS.;DAI'--,=THE_(::;m<€§' MADE we FOLLOWING: ' TiIe _ __@f j the K.R.Puram City Municipai the dehmitation. of constituencies the Delimitaticm Committee, in the K.R.PIJran1 Constituency and §IEa1ii1c§I3iieiilj:Irz{"Constituency in Bangalore Urban V . Distfict, fied this petititm caiiing in questien the H 'A cf Article 329(3) of the Constitutian '-§I 1dd:ia and to quash the final notification dateé "'«:VVVV2}7'.2O07 Am1r.=~:xura--D, i11S0f3.I' as it relates to aforesaid two (3()I"1S'{itl1CI}(2i6S and a mandamus directing lst I'esp0nde:1t-Dc=;1in1itat§9:1 Commission to colisicler the M by law, which ixlcidentaily is the H " 'T .. 'V e_The'*v}2'it petition is, aceerdizlgly rejected. -4- petitieners' objections 'co the preiiminazy "re _A include the area coming under ffiféfd' ' K.R.Pura CMC under the Mafladeflragfizfa C{§t;siit1ie3is:$»¥; e V
2. In the light of the agfliafiaafive.gjronoufzcement of the Apex Court .{I;e_ 'cg,$}e:.ef-Vf12g;_ja.VRam Pal -V. Horfble Speaker._ para 188, ":33, ~*.;-ar»the jurisdiction of eefiirts iifliizatters of delimitation of coxiet,iVz/tL;.e1V*1c:i:,=;.s;"afiGt:ii<1e11t. of seats thereto and reserves 'jLi1'isdicti0i1 to deal with .e;{eetion dispL1t._e_$.iI1 favour of the authority Leas per the Representation of the " . People 'At;_t.,' 1951."
Sd/*3 Eaége ' 2007(3) sec 134