Laxmi Reddy S/O.Bhimareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Laxmi Reddy S/O.Bhimareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (4) AIR KAR R 888, AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 732 (KAR.)

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

   SHBUILDING, BANGALORE.

 2[<:H'iEE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 4% DAY OF   _
BEFORE      3  V
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN 
WRIT PETITION NO.8o24A Ol5'2Oi0  :3  i
BETWEEN:   L'  M  V

LAXMI REDDY,

S/O BHIMAREDDY, A A

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,-Q _ _ .  A
OCC.   

ZILLA PANC.HAYiXff;.'_ * _ _    V

YADGIR, D:sT_.- "'1_',ADGIR';-Ai'.'jVvA, ' T

R/O     " 

OPP. LIC OF'FlC,E,  j  

KHB COLONY.    A ...PETITION1':ER

[BY SR: 1   FOR
SR1 {3cHAOA.3HE'1*r1, ADV.,]

*1. THE-STATE:-OF KARNATAKA.
DEEPI'. OF  DEVELOPMENT
& PANCHAXLAT RAJ.

(REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,



 

{U

ZILLA PANCHAYAT, YADGIR,
DIST. YADGIR.

3. RAJAHANUMAPPA NAYAK,
s/o RAJA VASUDEV NAYAK.

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,  ; 'V E
occ. MEMBER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT," 4' 
YADGIR, R/O M G NIVAS, I  ..
SHORAPUR TOWN ~ 585 224,

TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YAE*GIR.  V}..REsi5o_jres.EteNTs = "

(BY SRI ASHOK FATIL, ADV.  
SR1 R s SIDHAPURKAEL A1;W., Fojrz R3:
SR1 s s KUMMAN, GA'-FORR ;R2"«sERvED}

This Writ, p5f§_1V5it.iOi'1':i.$1'ﬁl_eCi"uifidﬁit' Articles 226 & 227
of the Con_stitu_.wtion »of=find'iai; praying to quash the
impugned no.t_ifies;t.i.o1i»._dated' '~-1.3.>1.1() issued by the 1st
respondent " ~  mi,  GRA.AA.PA.227[2) :GPS:2009
produced at An::;;:,m:e  so far as reserving the post
of Adhyaigsha ofzilia Painehayat, Yadgir to S1' category

and etc.,

 VWritPe.tit1ion coming on for preliminary

 .ﬂ'i1ea"ring"7in group this day, the Court made the
 f0lIowing:'=   

ORDER

.. Petitioner has sought for quashing the notification 13.1.2010 issued by first respondent vide ig"/!;"'k_7 Annexure E in so far as it relates to reservationVto_ the post of Adyaksha of Zilla Panchayath. Scheduled Tribe category.

2. Petitioner contested eind member of Gulbarga Zﬂl'éV_"')?{ElrlCi'iE}}t:at1'1 constituency in the elzectionhei'd._diirin§ 2005. So also the 3rd respondent. elected as a member of 'Jfrom Kanapur S.H iotdviiarnataka issued a of the Land Revenue Act sphgtting to form a new District i.e., Yadgir«--.Districti7._Consequently Gulbarga District is A_ HOW'5bif1,tfC§it€d"ff11;9...1i'WO Districts, viz., Guibarga District w.e.f. 30.12.2009. The petitioner No.3 though were elected as of Ziila Panchayath, Gulbarga, are now the A ":in1.embers of Zilla Panchayath, Yadgir in View of the fact V &.

Bf?

whereas post of Upadyaksha is reserved for General (woman).

4. The notification AnneX1.1re_E in 00"

this writ petition on the ground the earlier notification Ar1nexur:e'"~-I) dated 'Was " 0' totaily unnecessary and "I10" candidate elected from the for scheduled tribe in Yadgirgiiila of the Apex Courtin DEVI .Vs. SMT.

in AIR 1997 so 347 is relied »the.._.i5et'itioner. £5; It is'4.Va1so'c'ontVended by learned advocate for the the caiendar of events to conduct the of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha was _ issued to 13.1.2010 and that therefore the iiniptigneds notiﬁcation dated 13.1.2010 by which the reservation is modiﬁed, is bad in the eye of law.

6. Per contra it is contended on behalf of the third respondent that though there is no Zilla Panch'acy'athc"

member who is elected from the reserved "

for the scheduled tribe, the third~irespone:i'e'n_t"

elected Zilla Panchayat member entitled to contest the e1ectio'11.'L:.t0ethe. pQst...D_"i_T 'V as the post is rese1'$.*'"e.d_A< fort"'tn'e:'j4}der.sAonabelonging to scheduled tribe. Sri relies upon the 'Sin the case of AMLAN s'1fA*rE 01+' ASSAM AND OTHERS' 20 1 7; KASAMBHA1 F G1L1ANcH1V vcr:{tND'DBHA1 D RAJPUT AND OTHERSLAreDbrteddin :1. 998 SC 815 in support of his . ."'c0ntenti6:n tc ccnteénd that the Zﬂla Panchayath to Scheduled Caste, but elected to _ Zi11a*«..Pat1chsysth from unreserved seat can contest for Je1ection"~tD the post of President, if the post is reserved "scheduled tribe.

7. Sri S S Kumman, the learned Government Advocate argued opposing the writ petition. verification of the records and on instructions;f"he-«V submits that election notiﬁcation for cond'u:ctingui' election to the post of Adyaksha.b':'an:dA_i not been issued or notified tiiijthis dvay, ' ﬁe-._:hVas'V"fiied a '' memo dated 4.2.2010:"to the"'saVid effect."'i**ie~'subrnits that only the notifications reiating"togreservation are issued.

8. Theiietitioner'-ash"Weii respondent No.3 are aspirants'''" ' 'ei'eetion for the post of Adyaksha the Iéazidciiatyrath of Yadgir District for the remaining' tei-1ure."~~--" The petitioner comes under '.11 " gerie1.5a1:,.Aeategory.'V 'nus he cannot contest the election to in case if the said post continues to AbeVdresef_\fe,diV:i'or scheduled tribe candidate. Es;

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner contested for the election to the Zilla Panchayath category so also the third respondent. It K it note that the third responderiltil iltiioughc' scheduled tribe, contested arirj"'«..e1ecteCi.':to Panchayath from unreserve'd::"seat. main question which arises to Vvvhvether the Zilla Panchayath me1nloe1";seheduled tribe, but elected unreserved constituencv, detection to the post of Adyaksha tor . tribe persons.

10. uln_ViiSvarvasvva_ti=I§evi's case (cited supra] relied upon5'.:.byx'levarned'counsel for the petitioner, it was no doi1'otjAl1_eld:v"t.h"at_ the persons who are elected from the reserved coristituency only can contest the election to 'lathe President or Adyaksha, in case if the said A reserved for that particular reserved category. But, the judgement in Saraswati Devfs case is.__0ver ruled by the Apex Court {Three Judges case of Kasambhai F Ghanchi [cited supraﬂ Court in Kasambhafs matter, h;3ismsp'ecifi&callv:réc1led"that in case if the seat is reserved for backward candidate, the candidate be'}oTng,{ing to._bac.1;vv"ardVVVclass, but elected to the Pa.r'ichayath' unreserved seat can contest to the post Qxdyaksha. The candidate for pdst person elected from the co_ns;tituen'cyreserved forvbackward class only. '-- of Article 343 D of the Constitution vofx' lndiadvi/ould reveal that there is no '_ indie;ati__on_0r sugge_stion in the article that in case the 'offiee_ 'of'*lthe:°Adyaksha is required to be filled by a rneriibevrd is a scheduled caste/scheduled tribe/'backward class or woman, then, only a member A 5 been elected from the reserved seat can contest pr'; /' the office'----c-f the Aclyaksha of Zilla Panchayath filled by a member belonging to '<.,womar'1_as the case may be, it would be enough if one "-be.Eo'n'gs to one of those categories irrespective of the fact

12. It is also relevant. to note the observations of the Apex Court in the case of BIHARI LAL ANIL JAIN (TINU) AND OTHERS reported SCW 2006, wherein it is observed 'thus:'' it it "In our view, wherever,thev_zoffice_--._ofthen President of a Municijjaiity isihtevquiréidjttotbei filled in by a member to.'Sched1i}ied Caste, ScheduIecl"'~Tribe ttiaciixvard "CVlAass as the case may vfotiltl if one belongs" "categories irrespec-tiye:o_f 'ther~fact.._«- they have been» ..e1ccVted ward or a reserVe{iV5»war1¥iV."' _ "

13. Viewof t1~1eaboVe, this Court concludes that schectluledi '$;:a}ste/scheduled tribe / backward class or \_{_J/(\ 13 Whether she/he has been elected from general constituency or reserved constituency. Hence itpdcalnnot be said that the third respondent cannot'-«lreoijtest election to the post of Adyaksliald and 'conse:qlu_entljr cannot be said that there is Yadgir Zilla Panchayath frorruscheduled"-tribeiieategory it to contest the post of ;4.\_dya_.i§s'h'a--:'r.eserved scheduled tribe persons.

14. fr_o1nv themrnemo filed by the GovernmentVﬁdtrgcatejl'itilis iclewaur that the calendar of eVentsi._to to the post of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha.iss._not"..'i'notiﬁed or published prior to Vvi.e.',""wth_e.date on which the impugned 'nVotiﬁcati'on'«Was issued. There is nothing on record to supggestythat the said submission made on behalf of the W_State incorrect and consequently the submission V' by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of iv"

notification Annexure D dated 29.12.2009.~=.__ and consequently the same is modiﬁed 1 notiﬁcation as per Annexure E is issued on 1;?,O'iO*i.ij ' accordance with the roaster. Sin"ce"this"-.ACouift'doevsiinot. ﬁnd any rrialafide intention in aissiiing notiﬁcation and as the same to in accordance with ru'ides','VA giound to quash the notifications following order is made: V Writ-.petiticwn.. the same is dismissed. Sd/-3 JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court