Karnataka High Court
B.A. Chaithra Anil vs State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.16321/2022 (LB-BMP)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION NOS.14763/2022, 15397/2022, 15403/2022,
15436/2022, 15685/2022, 15808/2022, 15823/2022 (LB-ELE),
15827/2022, 15842/2022, 16849/2022, 17438/2022 (LB-ELE),
17556/2022, 18564/2022
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16321/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B.Z. ZAMEER AHMED KHAN
S/O ZAIULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.34, BENSON CROSS ROAD
BENSON TOWN
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU-560046.
2. SMT. SOWMYA REDDY
D/O RAMALINGA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.455/7, 15TH MAIN
LAKKASANDRA ADUGODI
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 030.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 14.07.2022 BEARING
NO.UDD 66 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE R2 - UNDER
SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.14763/2022:
BETWEEN:
B.A. CHAITHRA ANIL
W/O. ANIL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RESIDING AT NO.407/9
B.M. KRISHNAPPA HOUSE
HOMMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
GOTTIGERE
BANGALORE-560 083. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.R. SATHISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF R.D.P.R.
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
4
3. THE DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. DODDATHUGUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BEGUR HOBLI, BEGUR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560 068.
5. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE
BANGALORE-560 002.
6. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
CUNNIGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
(IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH FINAL
NOTIFICATION OF BBMP 243 WARDS DETERMINATION MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-G PUBLISHED IN VIJAYAKARNATKA NEWSPAPER DATED
15.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
DATED 14.7.2022 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G1 IN NO.NAAAEE66
BBS 2022 AND ETC.
5
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15397/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D.B. SURESH
S/O D.N. BELLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.37, 2ND CROSS
ASHWATHAKATTE DASARAHALLI
H.A. FARM POST
BANGALORE-560 024.
2. SRI M. ADINARAYANA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.632, 21ST CROSS
NEAR BALAJI CONVENSION HALL
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE EAST, H.A. FARM POST
BANGALORE-560 024.
3. SRI SAHAYARAJU S
S/O SIMON
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.9, SAROVARA KALVARI HILLS
MAIN ROAD, ST. ANTHONY LAYOUT
MARYANNANA PALYA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
H.A. FARM POST, BANGALORE-560 024.
4. SRI D.R. SHIVANNA GOWDA
S/O LATE SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO. 65
NEAR GOVERNMENT RATION DEPO
DASARAHALLI , H.A. FARM POST
BANGALORE-560 024.
6
5. SRI CHANDRABABU
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO. 645, MAIN ROAD
BAZAR STREET
OPP. AKSHAYA BANDARA
K.R. PETE, MANDYA-571 426.
6. SRI ABHISHEK B.M.
S/O MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, 2ND CROSS
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
H.A. FARM POST
BANGALORE-560 024.
7. SRI MUNEGOWDA
S/O LATE SONNAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD
DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 024.
8. SRI RAKESH KUMAR D C
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O LATE CHANDRAHAS
R/O NEAR BELLEGOWDA CIRCLE
DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 024.
9. SRI SOLOMAN ANTHAPAP
S/O ANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
NO.170, MARIYANNAPALYA
DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 024.
7
10. SRI DOMINIC
S/O PRAKASHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O NO.260, ST. ANTHONY ROAD
MARIYANNAPALYA, DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 024.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQURE
BENGALURU-560 002
REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
8
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION ANNEXURE-L DATED
14.07.2022 NO.UDD66BBS2022 BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS WARDS
NO.7 TO 10 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15403/2022:
BETWEEN:
R. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT ANNAPURNESHWARI NILAYA
PATTANDUR AGRAHARA
WHITE FIELD POST
BENGALURU-560 066. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY SECRETARY.
2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY SECRETARY.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
9
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 027
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND TO
DELETE THE PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE FROM THE WAR
NO.105 BELTHUR WARD AND CONTINUED IN THE GARUDACHAR
PALYA WARD OR WHITEFIELD WARD VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15436/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. B.N. MANJUNATHA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.84/19, 1ST MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR
MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068.
2. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA C
S/O CHIKKANANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO.2, 1ST MAIN ROAD
CHINNAPPA GARDEN
BENGALURU-560 046.
3. SRI N NAGARAJ
S/O LATE NARASARAJU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT NO.793, 31ST CROSS
10
4TH T BLOCK, TILAK NAGAR
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
4. SRI K C GOVARDHAN REDDY
S/O CHIKKABASHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/A NO.147/C 12TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
11
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 66 BBS
2022, BENGALURU, DATED 14.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED
BY THE R-2 HEREIN, FINALIZING THE DELIMITATION OF WARDS
OF THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE AS BEING
WHOLLY ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND UNSCIENTIFIC,
SMACKED WITH LEGAL AND FACTUAL MALAFIDES AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO 15685/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTHINAGARA BLOCK CONGRESS COMMITTEE
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
K.NANDA KUMAR
S/O M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.8, 7TH 'A' CROSS, BAZAAR STREET
NEELSANDRA, BANGALORE-560 047.
2. KORAMANGALA YOUTH WELFARE ASSOCIATIONS (R)
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI UMASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.303, K H B COLONY
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 095.
...PETITIONERS
12
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT(BBMP-2)
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR
NO.16, BALLARI ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080.
(R-4 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.08.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
13
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 14.07.2022 ISSUED
BY THE R-1 WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA STATE
GAZETTER AT PART NO.3 AT NO.387 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15808/2022:
BETWEEN:
S. ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO 4/1, JOLLY MASJID ROAD
JOLLY MOHALLA, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560 053 AND ALSO
ADVOCATE OFFICE AT NO.19/1, 2ND FLOOR
NEPTUNE TOWERS, ALEXANDER STREET
LANGFORD TOWN, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARAVIND KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUBBA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (B.B.M.P.2)
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE DELIMITATION COMMISSION
CONSTITUTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT
14
FOR THE PURPOSE OF BBMP ELECTIONS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
SRI TUSHAR GIRINATH IAS
PRESENTLY CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR
NO.16, BALLARI ROAD
SADASHIVANAGARA
BANGALORE-560 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DELIMITATION NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.NA.AA.EE.66 BBS
2022, BENGALURU ANENXURE-A DATED 14.07.2022 ISSUED BY R1
IN SO FAR AS THE CHAMARAJPETE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY IS
CONCERNED AS THE SAME IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE
OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15823/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. NAVEENA N
S/O NARAYANAPPA M
15
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.755, KCDC ROAD
BBMP OFFICE, KUDLU, VINAYAKA
NAGARA, BANGALORE SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 068.
2. DASHARATH G
S/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.1899, 4TH CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD, SOMASUNDARAPALYA
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
AMBEDKAR BHEEDI, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
AMBEDKAR BHEEDHI, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. JOINT SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AMBEDKAR BHEEDHI, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
16
4. COMMISSIONER
BURHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002.
5. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
KSCMF BUILDING, NO.8, 1ST FLOOR
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 17 BBL 2020 (P-1)
(E) DATED 29.01.2021 ISSUED BY R3 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
ANNEXURE-D TO THE PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15827/2022:
BETWEEN:
MR. S.D. GURURAJ
S/O MR. S.V. DAYANANDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.80, 4TH CROSS
3RD MAIN ROAD, KSRTC LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 061.
...PETITIONER
17
(BY SRI MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,
POOVAYYA AND CO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.16, II AND III FLOOR
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
18
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO.UDD 66 BBS 2022, BENGALURU DATED 14.07.2022,
ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - BBMP (AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.15842/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PRATISH KUMAR S.R
S/O S.P. RAGHURAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 15, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS
HOSUR MAIN ROAD
NEAR NEW GANESH TEMPLE
SINGASANDRA, ANEKAL
BENGALURU-560 068.
2. SMT. ANUPAMA S B
W/O PANCHAKSHARI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A 602, 2ND MAIN ROAD
NEAR LALITHA GAS AGENCY
KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 060.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
19
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARTY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER.
(R-4 - IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2022
BEARING NO.UDD 66 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE R-2
UNDER SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
20
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16849/2022:
BETWEEN:
AJAY D
S/O DEVAKI KUMARI M C
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
NO.38, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS
DEEPANJALI NAGAR
BANGALORE-26.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2)
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
KSCMF BUILDING, ANNEXURE
NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE
21
BENGALURU-560 002
REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.UDD/66/BBS/2022, BENGALURU, DATED 14.07.2022, ISSUED
BY THE R-1 SO FAR AS THE NEWLY FORMED WARD NO.163 OF
VEERABHADRANAGAR, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17438/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. SATHISH REDDY
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF BOMMANAHALLI
CONSTITUENCY (MLA)
KARNATAKA STATE AND CHIEF WHIP OF BJP PARTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O MUNI REDDY
R/A NO.123, BEGUR MAIN ROAD
HONGASANDRA, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
BENGALURU SOUTH, BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 068.
2. SMT. MADHURI
W/O KIRAN T S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.50, 3RD CROSS
22
SATYA SAI LAYOUT, MALLSANDRA
BANGALORE SOUTH
BENGALURU-560 068.
3. SRI VINAY
S/O J.S. ASHWATHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A NO.37, SATYA SAI LAYOUT
AKSHAYANAGAR, BEGAURU
BENGALURU-560 068.
4. SRI V SRINIVASA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A NO.6/6, AKKSHYA NAGARA
BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068.
5. WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENTS OF
SATYSAI NAGAR LAYOUT, AKSHAYANAGAR
BEGUR POST, BANGALORE-560 068
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI RUDRAMUNI SWAMY HALIVANA MATH
(REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT 1960)
6. SMT. A. NAGARATHNA
W/O V. ANANTHA RAMU
NO.5, CHANAKYA ROAD
C MAIN, 1ST CROSS, AKSHYA GARDEN
YELENAHALLI, BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)
23
AND:
1. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2)
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND
DIVISIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH)
BBMP OFFICE PREMISES
2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 041.
6. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
KCMF BUILDING, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE.
(R-6 IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.09.2022)
...RESPONDENTS
24
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 66 BB3
2022 DATED 14.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 WHICH IS
PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA STATE GAZETTEER AT PART NO.3
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17556/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S.V. MAHESH
S/O VENKATESH REDDY S P
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.261, 3RD CROSS
SINGASANDRA, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
SINGASINDRA
BENGALURU-560 100.
2. SRI V. PARAMESH
S/O C. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.26, ROOPENA AGRAHARA
DINNE MANEGALU
NEAR NURSURY ROUND TABLE
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
25
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2)
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED
26
14.07.2022 BEARING NO.UDD 66 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED
BY THE R2-UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18564/2022:
BETWEEN
SHRI P MUNINARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.16, 1ST MAIN
NELAGADARANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST
BENGALURU-560 073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SAINATH D.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
3. ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
27
(BY SRI PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, A.G., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 66 BBS 2022 AT
ANNEXURE-B DATED 14.7.2022 AT PAGE NO.14-254 TO THIS
PETITION AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The notification dated 14.7.2022 issued by the State of Karnataka represented by its Under Secretary to the Department of Urban Development (BBMP-2) in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short `Act, 2020') finalizing the delimitation of the wards for the purpose of holding elections of councilors to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short `BBMP') is impugned in all these writ petitions.
28
2. The BBMP is the body constituted and was established under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Bengaluru City originally comprised 198 wards, which was determined under the Act, 1976. The election to the councilors of the BBMP was held in September, 2020 and term of the councilors was for a period of five years which expired on 10.9.2020. For effective administration of the BBMP, the state government enacted the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, which came into effect from 11.1.2020. Section 7(3)(a) of the Act, 2020 specifies that the Government shall by order determine the wards into which the Corporation shall for the purpose of its election, be divided into not less than 225 but more than 250 wards. Section 13 of the Act, 2020 specifies that the general election shall be held for the purpose of constitution of new Corporation before the expiry of duration of existing Corporation or on dissolution. Since the election was not held as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 2020, the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.10216/2020 directed the State Government to publish the final notification of reservation within two weeks from 22.9.2020 and the State Election Commission was directed to hold election for councillors of BBMP 29 within the maximum period of six weeks from the date on which final notification is published.
3. The order passed by the Division Bench is challenged by the State Government in SLP (Civil) No.1518/2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions to complete the election process and the election process is monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the impugned notification was published and in the light of the order dated 17.8.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioners sought clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.8.2022 directed this Court to decide these writ petitions on merits and pass interim or final orders in accordance with law.
4. In view of the said clarification, these petitions are heard and taken up for final disposal.
WP No.17438/2022:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Hulimavu Ward No.239 falls within two assembly constituencies viz: Bommanahalli Legislative Assembly constituency 30 and Bengaluru South constituency and the same is in violation of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act, which is evident from the communications dated 8.8.2022 at Annexure-N and dated 19.8.2022 at Annexure-O issued by the Additional District Election Officer - 5th respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that the said communications have been rectified and the information furnished is withdrawn.
6. As on the date of recommendation made by the Commission constituted for Delimitation of the Wards, the term of Committee had expired. Hence, the Delimitation Commission had no authority to submit the report and the impugned notification issued on the basis of the said report stands vitiated. WP No.15827/2022:
7. The notification dated February 15, 2014 issued by the State Government setting out the guidelines for delimitation of wards in urban local bodies under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is not applicable since there is no 31 explanation to Section 21 of the Act, as is provided in Section 7 of the Act, 2020.
WP No.15823/2022:
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent, in exercise of power under Section 7 of the Act, 2020, has increased the number of wards from 198 to 243 under the impugned notification and out which 36 wards are increased in the assembly constituencies held by the ruling party and only nine wards have been increased in the constituencies held by the opposition party, which clearly establishes that the exercise of delimitation of wards is made so as to give unfair advantage to the ruling party.
WP No.15403/2022:
9. Belthur Ward No.105 comes under Mahadevapura constituency and the population of the said ward is 30098. The Pathandur Agrahara village is adjacent to Whitefield and Garudachar Palya wards and the Whitefield Panchayat was situated within one and half kilometers from the said village. By virtue of the impugned notification, the said village is included in Ward No.105, 32 which is approximately 15 kilometers from the said village without considering the objections filed by the petitioner, thus causing inconvenience to the villagers.
WP No.16849/2022:
10. Ward No.163 of Veerabhadranagar comes under Vijayanagar constituency and 1300 voters in Basavanagudi Assembly Constituency are included in the said ward. The learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that Annexure-C has been rectified and the said information furnished is withdrawn.
WP No.17556/2022:
11. The boundaries of the wards have been manipulated to suit the convenience of the ruling party, which is evident from Annexure-E. Hence, the impugned notification is actuated by malafide and illegalities.
W.P.No.15808/2022:
12. Sri Aravind Kamath, learned Senior Counsel submits that the number of wards in Chamarajpet Assembly constituency have been deliberately reduced by increasing the population in each 33 of the wards at 39000 over and above 10% of the average population fixed at 34750. It was well within the powers of the State Government to increase the number of wards from 6 to 7 wards by bringing the population of each of the wards to the average population of 34750 since the number of wards determined under the notification is 243 out of the maximum permissible limit of 250 wards.
13. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner's counsel in W.P.No.15685/2022, Mr. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner's counsel in W.P.No.15823/2022, Mr. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner's counsel in W.P.15436/2022, Mr. Aravind Kamath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner's counsel in W.P.No.15808/2022, Mr. Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15827/2022, Mr. Sandeep S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15842/2022 would make the following submissions:
a) There is deviation of more than 10% on either side in the population determined for each of the wards and the same is 34 contrary to Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, 2020 which specifies that the population of each of the wards shall, as far as practicable be the same throughout Bengaluru.
b) The delimitation of the wards carried out is to give an unfair advantage to the ruling party by reducing the wards in the Assembly Constituencies represented by the MLAs of the opposition parties and increasing the number of wards in Assembly Constituencies represented by the MLAs of the ruling party.
c) The boundaries of the wards have been manipulated to suit the convenience of the ruling party, thus giving an unfair advantage to the ruling party which is a typical case of gerrymandering (State of M P -vs- Devilal) reported in 1986 (1) SCC 657.
14. On the other hand, Sri Prabhulinga Navadgi, learned Advocate General and Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned AGA appearing for the respondent - State, Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned Senior counsel appearing for Smt. Vaishali Hegde for respondent - State Election Commission and Sri Sreenidhi.V, learned counsel for respondent would make the following submissions: 35
a) The deviation of 10% of the population of wards is permissible under the guidelines issued by the Government and the said deviation was inevitable so as to give priority to the BBMP extended wards which are growth of the population in the said wards and also the demographic area of the Assembly Constituencies.
b) The Delimitation Committee has given due
attention to determine the boundaries of the wards
based on permanent features like roads, storm water
drains, railway lines, lakes, defence lands as well as
large compound walls raised by the
Institutions/Companies/Governments etc.
c) The population of each ward is determined by amalgamating adjacent census blocks on the basis of the 2011 population census. Census blocks cover a defined geographical area with a defined perimeter and hence final shape is an outcome of the number of blocks in contiguity. The Committee has taken due course to retain the existing wards as much as possible unless it warrants trimming, adding of Census blocks by merging with proper boundary features like roads, storm water drains etc.
15. In addition, Sri Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission in addition would 36 submit that maintaining uniformity in population of each of the wards is only one of the factors that has to be taken into account while delimiting the wards and there need not be uniformity of population and electoral strength in the matter of delimitation of constituencies. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R C Poudyal -vs- Union of India and others (1994) Supl. 1 SCC 324), which was rendered with reference to Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act.
16. He further submits that deviation of 10% of population on either side in delimitation of wards is acceptable and imminence of election is the factor for not quashing the impugned delimitation notification. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivamadhu and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others (ILR 2018 Kar. 4972) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa -vs- Fouziya Imtiyaz Shaikh (2021) 8 SCC 401.
17. Sri Srinivas Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the proposed respondent submits that the words shall as far as 'Practicable' should be construed as far as possible and is 37 a flexible provision. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Presidential Poll, In re, (1974) 2 SCC 33.
18. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
19. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether there is a constitutional bar contained in Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India to challenge the delimitation of wards for holding elections of councilors of BBMP ?
2) Whether the delimitation of wards is in conformity with Section 7 of the BBMP Act, 2020?
Reg:Point No.1:
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa (supra) has held that the constitutional bar operates only from the date of notification of election till the date of result of the election and it is the matter of discretion exercisable by writ Court as to whether an interference is called for when the electoral process is imminent and therefore orders made under statutory provisions 38 dealing with delimitation can be questioned in Courts provided the statute concerned does not give such orders the status of statutory provision. It was further held that if the assistance of writ Court will be required in subserving the progress of the election and facilitating its completion, the writ Court may issue orders provided that the election process, once begun, cannot be postponed or protracted in any manner.
21. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa (supra), the challenge to the delimitation of wards is held to be maintainable. Reg. Point No.2:
22. Section 7 of the BBMP Act 2020 is in pari materia with Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Before answering this point raised for consideration, it is necessary and relevant to reproduce, Section 21 of the KMC Act, 1976, Section 7 of the Act, 2020 .
23. Section 21 of the KMC Act reads thus:
"21. Determination of [wards], etc.-(1) For purposes of election of councillors Government shall, 39 [on the recommendation of delimitation commission] by notification, determine.-
(a) the [wards] into which the city shall be divided and the extent of each division:
[Provided that, in respect of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike the State Government shall, by notification, divide the city into wards in such manner that area of wards, as far as possible, shall be within the jurisdiction of an Assembly constituency of the State Legislature and no ward shall be divided between Assembly Constituencies of the State Legislature.]
(b) the number of seats [allotted to each ward which shall be one]
(c) the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes the Scheduled Tribes, [Backward Classes and women] and the [wards] in which such seats shall be reserved.
[1-A) No notification under sub-section (1) shall be called in question in any court of law;] (2) The ratio between the number of Concillors to be elected from each [ward] and the population of that [ward] [xxx] shall so far as practicable to be the same throughout the city. [(2-A) the State Government shall, constitute a delimitation commission consisting of such number of members, as may be prescribed to recommend the State Government, the manner of delimitation of wards in each corporation:] [Proviso xxx].
40(3) The State Government may make rules for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2)."
24. Section 7 of the BBMP, 2020 reads thus:
"7. Delimitation of Wards.- (1)For the purposes of election of councilors, Bengaluru shall be divided into wards on the recommendation of the delimitation commission in such manner that,- (a) the population of each of the wards shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout Bengaluru.; (b) Wards shall be divided within the constituency of a member of legislative assembly and no wards shall be spread over to constituencies.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section population means the population of the city ascertained by preceding census of which relevant figures have been published.
(2) The Government shall constitute a delimitation commission consisting of such a number of persons as may be prescribed to recommend to the Government regarding the manner of division of wards.
(3) The Government shall by order determine,-
(a) the wards into which the Corporation shall,for the purpose of its elections, be divided in to not less than two hundred and twenty five but not more than two hundred and fifty wards;
(b) the extent of each ward; and
(c) the number of seats so reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall bear as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the 41 total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the corporation as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the city or of the Scheduled Tribes in the city bears to the total population of the city:
Provided that the number of seats so reserved for the Backward Classes under this sub- section shall be so determined, that the total number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes under sub-
section(2) and the Backward Classes under
this sub-section shall not exceed one
third of the total number of seats in the
Corporation.
(4) Not more than fifty percent of the seats reserved for each category of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and those of the non-reserved seats to be filled by direct election in a corporation shall be reserved for women:
Provided that, the seats reserved in sub-
sections (3) and (4) shall be allotted by rotation
to different wards in the city.
(5) No delimitation of wards or change of
wards for the purpose of reservation shall be
made in the Corporation after its constitution except for the purpose of general election to that Corporation and no such delimitation or change of wards shall, in any manner, affect the existing Corporation.
25. Article 81 of the Constitution of India deals with the composition of the House of the people and clause (a) of Article 81 specifies that not more than 530 members to the Parliament shall 42 be chosen by direct election from Territorial constituencies in the States and Clause (b) specifies that not more than twenty members to represent the Union Territories chosen in such manner has parliament may provide.
26. Article 81(2) specifies that the number of seats in the House of People to each State shall be allotted in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the State is, so far as practicable, be the same for all States and each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ration between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the same.
27. The Delimitation Act, 1972 was enacted for readjustment of allocation of seats in the House of People to the State etc.
28. Section 9 deals with delimitation of constituencies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1962 at paras-182 to 186 has held as follows: 43
"182. The principle of one man one vote envisages that there should be parity in the value of votes of electors. Such a parity though ideal for a representative democracy is difficult to achieve. There is some departure in every system following this democratic path. In the matter of delimitation of constituencies, it often happens that the population of one constituency differs from that of the other constituency and as a result although both the constituencies elect one member, the value of the vote of the elector in the constituency having lesser population is more than the value of the vote of the elector of the constituency having a larger population. Take the instance of Great Britain. There is statutory allocation of seats between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whereunder, Scotland is to have not less than 71 seats; Wales not less than 35 and Northern Ireland 17. It has been found that Scotland is over- represented to the extent of 14 seats and Wales to the extent of 5 seats and England is under-represented to the extent of 14 seats. The justification that has been offered for these inequalities is that constituencies in sparsely populated areas such as the Highlands would otherwise be inconveniently large geographically. Prof. Wade has questioned this justification (H.W.R. Wade: Constitutional Fundamentals, The Hamlyn Lectures, 32nd series, 1980, p.
5). He has pointed out that within the constituent counties of the United Kingdom, there are great inequalities in the size of individual constituencies and that the smallest constituency contains only 25,000 voters and the largest 96,000, nearly four times as many. He has referred to the 44 Report of the Blake Commission on Electoral Reforms (1976) wherein it is recommended that the discrepancy should never exceed two to one, and has observed -- "this is surely the maximum which should be regarded as tolerable" (p. 7).
Criticising the existing state of affairs, Prof. Wade has said:
"The British Parliament, addicted though it is to the pursuit of equality in so many other ways, does not seem interested in equality of representation between voters any more than between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Since 1948 it has insisted rigidly on the principle of one man, one vote. When will it accept the correlative principle one vote, one value?"(p. 8)
183. The matter of apportionment of seats in the State Legislatures has come up for consideration before the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of cases. In Reynolds v. Sims [377 US 533 : 12 L Ed 2d 506, 527-28 (1964)] the Court, while examining the said matter on the touchstone of the equal protection clause, has held that the equal protection clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral State Legislature be apportioned on a population basis and that such deviations from the equal population principle are constitutionally permissible so long as such deviations are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational State policy. Chief Justice Warren, expressing the views of six members of the Court, has observed:45
"We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.(p. 577) ... So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature."(p. 579)
184. Variance to the extent of 16 per cent has been upheld by the Court. (See Mahan v. Howell [410 US 315 : 35 L Ed 2d 320] ).
185. The High Court of Australia, in Attorney General (CTH) Ex. Rel. McKinlay v. The Commonwealth [(1975) 135 CLR 1, 22] has considered the issue in the context of Section 24 of the Australian Constitution which provides that "the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth". It was argued that the words "chosen by the people of Commonwealth"
required each electoral division within a State so far as practicable to contain the same number of people or, alternatively, the same number of electors. The said contention was rejected and it was held (by majority of six to 46 one) that Section 24 of the Constitution did not require the number of people or the number of electors in electoral divisions to be equal. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on apportionment were held to be inapplicable in the context of the Australian Constitution. Barwick, C.J., has observed:
"It is, therefore, my opinion that the second paragraph of Section 24 cannot be read as containing any guarantee that there shall be a precise mathematical relationship between the numbers of members chosen in a State and the population of that State or that every person in Australia or that every elector in Australia will have a vote, or an equal vote."(p. 22)
186. Similarly, Mason, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, has stated:
"The substance of the matter is that the conception of equality in the value of a vote or equality as between electoral divisions is a comparatively modern development for which no stipulation was made in the system of democratic representative government provided for by our Constitution." (p. 62) In this regard, the scheme of our Constitution is that under Article 327 Parliament is empowered to make a law relating to delimitation of constituencies and under Article 329(a) the validity of such a law or the allotment of seats to such constituencies cannot be called in question in any court. In 47 exercise of the power conferred on it under Article 327 Parliament has enacted the Delimitation Act, 1962 which provides for constitution of a Delimitation Commission to readjust on the basis of the latest census figures the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the several States, the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State and the division of each State into territorial constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of People and to the State Legislative Assembly. In Section 9(1) of the said Act it is prescribed that the Commission shall delimit the constituencies on the basis of the latest census figures but shall have regard to considerations referred to in clauses (a) to (d). Clause (a) requires that all constituencies shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to physical features, existing boundaries of administrative units, facility of communication and public convenience. Clause (b) requires that every assembly constituency shall be so delimited as to fall wholly within one parliamentary constituency. Clauses (c) and (d) relate to location of constituencies in which seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This shows that population, though important, is only one of the factors that has to be taken into account while delimiting constituencies which means that there need not be uniformity of population and electoral strength in the matter of delimitation of constituencies. In other words, there is no insistence on strict adherence to equality of votes or to the principle one vote -- one value."48
29. The State Government by notification dated 15.2.2014 has set out guidelines with respect to the delimitation of wards of the urban local bodies under Section 13 and Section 352(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and section 21 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and in so far as the corporation is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District was required to prepare delimitation proposal and furnish the same to the Government for publishing the draft notification.
30. Clause 9 of the said notification specifies that an extent of 10% deviation in population would be acceptable if the geographical features, means of communication, public convenience, contiguity of the area and necessity to avoid breaking up of administrative units so demand.
31. In the instant case, the respondent-State has contended that the wards have been delimited in the Bengaluru City in conformity with the guidelines issued by the State Government and also Section 7 of the Act, 2020.
49
32. The parameters for determining the number of wards within the BBMP Assembly segments is set out in tabular form at Annexure-R11 to the additional statement of objection filed by the respondent - State. A perusal of the same would indicate that the following factors have been taken into consideration in delimitation of the wards:
1) Physical aspects i.e. total area of each of the constituency, percentage of the BBMP area, existing wards, average ward area, road length and area of tank, parks, playgrounds, etc.
2) Demographic aspect - population as per 2001 census, average ward population with reference to 2001 census, population as per 2011 census, ward population with reference to 2011 census and decadal growth.
3) Projected population 2021 and average projected ward population.
4) Electoral population - voters (January, 2021) and average ward voters (January 2021).
5) Factor for determining the number of wards with average of 34750 and 10% deviation either 3125 or 38225.
6) Average ward area for the wards to be delimited.
7) Average ward population for the wards to be delimitated.
8) Average ward voters (January, 2021) after delimitation of wards.50
33. That one of the smallest geographical areas of the assembly constituency is that of Chamarajpet constituency, the total area of which is 4.32 sq. kilometers and the geographical area of Mahadevapura constituency which has the largest geographical area of 115.18 sq. kilometers. Earlier there existed seven wards in Chamarajpet constituency and eight wards in Mahadevapura constituency. The population of Chamarajpet constituency as per 2011 census was 2,37,460 and that of Mahadevapura constituency was 4,31,976. The Delimitation Commission by considering the aforesaid salient factor has reduced the number of wards from seven to six in Chamarajpet constituency and increased the number of wards in Mahadevapura constituency from eight wards to thirteen wards. Similar exercise has been carried out in respect of other constituencies and in the absence of any material that the wards have been increased deliberately in constituencies held by the ruling party and the boundaries of the wards have been manipulated to give unfair advantage to the ruling party, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 51 impugned notification is actuated by malafides and illegalities is not acceptable.
34. In determining the population of each of the ward and fixing the boundaries , the process adopted by the delimitation committee is set out in Annexure-R14 and R-15, which reads thus:
1) While adhering to the primary and supporting aspects of delimitation, as a first principle average population for 243 wards was determined.
2) Based on the 2011 population and the proposed average population for each ward, number of possible wards in a Legislative Assembly Constituency within BBMP was determined.
3) Area of each Legislative Assembly Constituency and the population growth, area of existing ward and optimal area of ward with respect to area of the constituency, area covered by lakes, parks and length of roads have been considered while delimiting the ward.
4) Deviation of 10% from the average determined population was kept in mind as it was required to achieve optimal number, size and shape of the ward besides taking care of means of communication, public convenience, contiguity of the areas and necessity to avoid breaking of administrative units. In the exercise, wards had to be reduced in few cases and increased in few cases.
5) In any Assembly Constituency where the number of wards, existing population (2011) of the wards are in agreement with proposed pattern of number and population distribution matched, no change has been 52 effected. The number and population of each existing ward have been retained.
6) In few Assembly segments, slight redistribution was required to bring the average population and in such cases only refinement has been effected".
(b) The effort to maintain the uniform distribution of population in each of the wards at Annexure-15 has resulted in the following:
"1. Average population of wards has been maintained at 34750 with a deviation of 10% (on either side) depending on he area of the respective assembly segments in BMP.
2. Retaining the earlier status of wards and population as t was in two assembly constituencies viz., 157 - Malleswaram and 164-Gandhi Nagar.
3. Redistribution of population amongst same wards in five assembly constituencies viz., 169-Chickpet 165-Rajaji Nagar, 163-Shanti Nagar, 159- Pulakeshi Nagar and 158- Hebbal. In the process ward boundaries had to be adjusted to census blocks.
4. Aspects like decadal growth, size of the assembly segments and other infrastructure have rendered three assembly segments viz., 162-Shivaji Nagar and 168- Chamarajpet and 173-Jayanagar to less wards.
• Chamarajapet Assembly area is the smallest in the ACs of BBMP. Population density, though higher, other parameters like, area length of roads and population growth (even projected population, a measure of further growth), and more than everything opportunity for management of Wards make it having less wards.
• Chickpet Assembly, a nearby constituency, almost in the same population range but has famous Lalbagh 53 (geographically large area) to be included in one of the wards; thus had to retain its earlier wards but with slight redistribution of population.
• Population growth of Padmanabha Nagar and Govindaraja Nagar Assemblies is above 34% and geographically these two needed more wards.
• Jayanagar Assembly constituency has a fairly large geographical area . One of the systematically developed areas and shown less decadal growth and reaching almost saturation and warranted less wards.
• Shivaji Nagar Constituency has less negative decadal growth of population and covers large institutional areas and parks like Cubbon Park, Vidhan Soudha, High Court etc. had to be contented with less wards
5. Kudlu village, a part of 177-Anekal Constituency has been given a recognition of a separate ward though with less (as per 2011) population.
6. In 17 assembly segments wards have been increased proportionally and boundaries have been redefined
7. Slightly different convention of numbering of wards was adopted mainly to keep wards of particular Assembly segment in serial sequence. With the result wards in any Assembly segments are provided with continuous numbers.
35. Section 7 of the BBMP Act is in pari materia with Section 21 of the KMC Act, 1976. The deviation of 10% on either side in maintaining average population of 34750 is in conformity with the guidelines issued by the State Government and in some 54 wards, there is deviation of more than 12% and the reasons for the deviation in excess of 10% is set out in the process adopted for delimitation at Annexure-R-14. Though there is some discrepancy in maintaining the average population in each of the wards, the same cannot be said to be actuated by malafides or illegalities in the absence of any material and also having regard to the fact that the delimitation of wards involves a complex process and there is bound to be some discrepancies and the said discrepancies has not resulted in adversely affecting rights of the parties.
36. Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of KMC Act specifies ratio between the number of councilors to be elected from each ward and the population of that ward as far as practicable be the same throughout the city. The term 'population' is defined in Section 2(26-A) of the Act, 1976 which specifies that the population was ascertained at the last preceding census of which relevant figures have been published. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delimitation of the wards under the Act, 1976 was not on the basis of population ascertained by preceding census and as such, the guidelines issued by the State 55 Government are not applicable for delimitation of wards under the Act, 2020 is not acceptable.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R C Poudyal (supra) with reference to Section 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act has held that the population, though important, is only one of the factor that has to be taken into account while delimiting the constituencies which means there need not be uniformity in population and electoral strength in the matter of delimitation of constituencies. In other words, there is no insistence on strict adherence to equality of votes or to the principle of one vote - one value.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Presidential Poll, In re, (1974) 2 SCC 33 has held that Article 55(1) of Constitution of India states as far as practicable, there shall be uniformity in the scale of representation and Article 55 Constitution of India shows that the words as far as "practicable" indicate that in practice the scale of representation may not be uniform because of the actual number of electors entitled at the date of election to cast their votes. Hence, Section 7 of the Act, 2020 which specifies that 56 the population of each of the wards in Bengaluru City shall as far as practicable be the same in strict sense should be construed as far as possible and is a flexible provision clothing the Government with power to meet the difficult situation otherwise there would be no delimitation of wards each having the same population if the words shall as far as possible is read in rigidity.
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa and another (supra) has held that it is a matter of discretion exercisable by a writ Court as to whether an interference is called for when the electoral process is "imminent" i.e. the notification for election is yet to be announced. The elections to councillors of BBMP is long overdue since September, 2020. The delimitation of wards cannot be said on the face of it to be arbitrary so as to exercise the discretionary power in interfering with the impugned notification.
40. In exercise of the power conferred under section 7(2) of the Act, 2020, the government constituted the committee for delimitation of wards initially for a period of 6 months. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the commission could not complete the 57 delimitation of wards and the state government by notification dated 06.08.2022 extended the term of the commission for a period of 2 months from 28.01.2022. Since the commission could not complete the process of delimitation of wards due to COVID-19 pandemic, the government by notification dated 22.08.2022 extended the term of commission from 28.03.2022 to 30.06.2022, and during the said period the delimitation committee submitted the report.
41. The Apex court in the case of Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1955 SC 25 at para 18 has held as follows:
" 18. The third and the last point raised by Mr Chatterjee is directed against the notification of the Chief Commissioner by which he extended the term of the Advisory Committee till the 20th of September, 1952. It is argued that the term of the committee, as originally fixed, expired on the 16th of July, 1952, and on and from the 17th of July all the members of the committee became functus officio. The Commissioner therefore was not competent to give a fresh lease of life to the committee which was already dead. We do not think that there is much substance in this contention. Rule 3 of the rules framed under Section 30 of the Act expressly lays down that the State Government may fix the term of the committee when it is constituted and may from time to time extend it as circumstances require. The State Government had therefore a right to 58 extend the term of the committee in such way as it liked. The only question is whether it could do so after the period originally fixed had come to an end. Mr Chatterjee relied, in this connection, upon certain cases which held that the court could not grant extension of time in an arbitration proceeding after the award was filed and an award made after the prescribed period is a nullity. In our opinion this analogy is not at all helpful to the appellants in the present case. It is not disputed that the committee did not function at all and did no work after the 16th of July, 1952, and before the 21st of August next when its term was extended. No report was submitted during this period and there was no extension of time granted after the submission of the report. Assuming that the order of the 21st August, 1952, could not revive a committee which was already dead, it could certainly be held that a new committee was constituted on that date and even then the report submitted by it would be a perfectly good report. Quite apart from this, it is to be noted that a committee appointed under Section 5 of the Act is only an advisory body and that the Government is not bound to accept any of its recommendations. Consequently, procedural irregularities of this character could not vitiate the final report which fixed the minimum wages. In our opinion, neither of the contentions raised in support of these appeals can succeed and both the appeals therefore should fail and stand dismissed with costs. "
42. Therefore even assuming that the aforesaid notification could not revive a commission which was already dead, it can be certainly held that a new committee was constituted on that date and even then the report submitted by it would be a valid report. The government has ratified the action of the commission in 59 submitting the report by issuing the aforesaid notification. Hence, it cannot be said that the impugned notification which is issued on the basis of the report submitted by the delimitation commission is vitiated.
43. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned notification issued by the State Government is in conformity with Section 7 of the BBMP Act, 2020. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Writ petitions stand dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, I.As. if any do not survive consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm