Karnataka High Court
Smt. N Swetha vs State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
1/56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.43169/2016 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN
1. SMT. N. SWETHA,
W/O N. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
H. S. GARDEN, KALAGENA TOTA,
CHICKBALAPUR TOWN,
CHICKBALAPUR DISTRICT - 564 101.
2. B. L. KESHAV KUMAR,
S/O B. V. LAKSHMI NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.422 OPPOSITE A. C. BUILDING,
VAPASANDRA, CHIKBALAPUR - 586 101.
3. NAGARATNA,
W/O YATISH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO.391 BEHIND RAGHAVENDRA
SWAMY TEMPLE, WARD NO.16 ,
CHIKBALAPUR - 586 101.
4. M. JAYAMMA,
W/O NARASHIMAYYA,
AGED ABOPUT 58 YEARS,
NO.5142 SUBRAYANA PETE,
CHIKBALAPUR TOWN - 586 101.
5. G. BHARTHI DEVI,
W/O D. S. ANAND REDDY,
NO.1296, RAILWAY STATION,
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
2/56
2ND CROSS, CHAMRAJPETE,
CHICBALAPUR TOWN - 586 101.
6. C. M. SRINIVAS REDDY,
S/O CHIKKA MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.1810, WARD NO.25,
GMV ROAD, YELEPETE,
CHIKBALAPUR TOWN - 586 101.
7. P. SRINIVAS,
S/O PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
JAI BHEEMA NAGAR,
CHICKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHICKBALAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALAPUR - 586 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
CHICKBALAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALAPUR - 586 101.
4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHICKBALAPUR - 586 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO.
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
3/56
5. S. M. RAFEEQ,
S/O ABDUL SATTAR SAB C. K.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.702/3
1768, FORT CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101
6. SMT. NIRMALA PRABHU,
W/O DR. B. SAI PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.1616, MUNICIPAL
LAYOUT M.G ROAD
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101.
7. SMT. K. T. BHARATHI,
W/O M. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WARD NO.14 KANDAVARA,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101
8. A. GAJENDRA,
S/O K. M. ASHWATHARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WARD NO.04, BEHIND C.S.I HOSPITAL,
DARGA MOHALLA, CHIKKABALLAPUR
TOWN - 586 101
9. K. V. MANJUNATH,
S/O K. C. VENKATAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.2272 T. G. TANK ROAD,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 586 101.
10. M. MUNI KRISHNA,
S/O LATE MOTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WARD NO.7, GANGANAMIDDAE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPUR - 586 101.
11. SRI. RAMESH BABU,
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
4/56
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.1217, KANDAVARAPETE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
12. SRI. R. V. RAMESH,
S/O LATE VENKADRI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO.804, INDIRA NAGAR,
BEHIND TRAVELLERS BUNGLOW,
BADAWARASANGHA COLONY,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
13. SMT. A. N. SINDHOORA TEJA,
W/O Y. NATARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
NO.218, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT
APMC YARD,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101.
14. SRI. A. B. MANJUNATH,
S/O ASHWATHANARAYANA CHARI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NO.2440, WARD NO.3, BEHIND
MARALUSIDDESHWARA TEMPLE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
15. SRI. N. SRINIVAS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.428, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
CHAMARAJAPETE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
16. SRI. B. K. SRINATH,
S/O KALPNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
5/56
R/AT NO.423, "SRI NILAYA",
KALLAPPA LAYOUT,
SILK MARKET ROAD,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
17. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O SRI. M. NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3 BHAGATH SINGH NAGARA,
CHIKKBALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
18. SRI. G. N. NARAYANA SWAMY,
S/O LATE SRI. J.N NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, 2ND CROSS,
MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, APMC YARD,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN-586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
19. SRI. R. DEVARAJ,
S/O LATE SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.428, OLD AEO OFFICE ROAD,
KANDHAVARA PETE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
20. SMT. V. LAKSHMI,
W/O SRI. V. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT, NO.693,
VENKATANAHALLI ROAD,
KHARKANE PETE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
6/56
21. SMT. S. LEELAVATHI,
W/O SRI. SRINIVAS, D. A, Amendment
carried out
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, as per Order
R/AT NO.5TH CROSS, dated
29TH WARD, CHAMARAJPET, 07.09.2016
CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN - 586 101,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
22. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SHAHAPUR, SHAHAPUR - 585 201, Amended
YADGIR DISTRICT. carried out
REP. BY ITS CEO as per Order
dated
21.09.2016
23. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR-585 201.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA, HGCP FOR R1 TO R3 & R-23.
SRI. D.S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R5 TOR9.
SRI. NISHANTH A. V., ADV. FOR R-10.
SRI. B. R. SRIVATSA, ADV. FOR R-4.
SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR R-11 TO R-15.
SMT. PUSHPALATHA G., ADV. FOR
SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV. FOR R-16 TO R-21.
SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV. FOR R-22.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-D DTD.4.3.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 AND
TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION
ACCORDING TO THE NOTIFICATION DTD.24.2.2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017
N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
7/56
ORDER
Mr.A. Mahammed Tahir, Adv. for petitioners, Mr.Anandeeswara, HCGP for R1 to R3 and 23, Mr. D.S. Ramachandra Reddy, Adv. for R5 to R9 Mr. Nishanth A.V., Adv. for R10 Mr. B.R. Srivatsa, Adv. for R4 Mr. Subramanya.R, Adv. for R11 to R15, Smt. Pushpalatha G. Adv. for Mr. Vivek Holla, Adv. for R16 to R21 Mr. Lokesh Malavalli, Adv. for R22.
The controversy in the present case regarding the reservation of the seats for the post of President and Vice President for the City Municipal Councils and Corporation in the State is squarely covered by a decision of this court in the case of Smt. Latha and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition Nos.22740- 762/2016 (LB-RES) rendered on 06.01.2017, whereby this court by a detailed judgment, discussing the relevant case laws from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, has held that, the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked in view of bar under Article 243-0 of the constitution of India. The similar bar is contained in W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
8/56Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India in the cases of Municipalities. The relevant portion of the Judgment at Paras 19 to 52 is quoted below for ready reference.
"19. The first and foremost reason is the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The validity of any law relating to de-limitation of constituencies or the allotment of seat to such constituencies cannot be examined by Courts in view of Clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners that the words "allotment of seats to such constituencies" would apply only to the allocation of seats or number of wards or posts of members for a particular Gram Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayaths. The words "allotment of seats"
to particular Zilla panchayat even for the post of 'President' and 'Vice President' would fall within the ambit and scope of clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
W.P.No.43169/2016Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
9/56The allotment of reservation to a particular seat of 'President' or 'Vice President' in a particular constituency or Zilla Panchayat cannot be excluded from the coverage of clause (a) so as to allow the judicial scrutiny of the same by the Courts by-passing the said bar of jurisdiction.
20. The purpose is simple and obvious, that is to maintain the sanctity, continuity and undisturbed process of election on the basis of which the democratic process can sustain and carried out. That is why the only remedy provided and allowed by the Constitution of India was by way of Election Petition before the competent Authority or Tribunal, after the elections have been concluded.
21. Clause (b) of Article 243-O clarifies this, when it stipulates " no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except in election petition...", the intention of constitutional bar is very clear, i.e. to provide an insulated and free from Court interference, election process. Any W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
10/56interference by the Courts of law at the beginning or during the process of election is bound to defeat the said avowed purpose of the constitutional mandate and it is wrong to say that merely because the writ petitions calling upon the Court to make a judicial scrutiny of such Notifications issued for the purposes of election for any post in Panchayat whether for 'Member' or for 'President' or 'Vice-President' is filed before the actual commencement of election process, by issuance of the Calendar of Events or fixing the date for filing nominations, holding of meetings for election, etc., can be so interfered is a wrong contention on the face of it.
22. The writ petitions on merits cannot obviously be decided in a matter of few days after having the stand of the Respondent - State in such cases and if commencement of election process itself was to be withheld or stayed to serve the effective purpose of such juridical scrutiny, that would be nothing but interference with the election process itself W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
11/56which is excluded by the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India quoted above.
23. The only remedy therefore available to any aggrieved person is to file a properly instituted Election Petition in such cases. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the election Tribunal could not have granted the relief as prayed for in the present writ petitions namely to quash the reservation of particular categories for particular Zilla Panchayat as it is bound to affect such reservations in all the Zilla Panchayats itself, destroys the argument of the petitioners. The aggrieved person can approach the election Tribunal only for the individual relief and not for sweeping reliefs for setting right the entire gamut of such reservations under the Rules. It is not necessary to grant all the relief which a petitioner has asked or prayed for.
24. The wider judicial scrutiny available under Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, merely because the election W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
12/56Tribunal cannot exceed its jurisdiction to go beyond a particular election for a particular Panchayat.
25. The impracticability and virtual impossibility of examining the fixation of reservations for the post of 'President' and 'Vice-President' of all the Zilla Panchayats is another big reason, which prevents this Court from exercising such a jurisdiction at the call of the petitioners for all such reservations in all the 30 Zilla Panchayats of the State. It is not beyond the pale of doubt that to apply the Rule of Rotation on the basis of Population Ratio as is prescribed in the Rules applicable for this purpose would require a mathematical tabulation of Population ratios of various categories and exercise of applying the principles of rotation with mathematical precision in a straight- jacket manner, if one were to undertake a hair-splitting exercise in writ jurisdiction as prayed for. This Court is simply not equipped to undertake any such exercise, even if one were to hypothetically assume, W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
13/56while it is not available to do so, that the constitutional bar does not apply in this case. As it is, the number of days taken for arguing this case by both the sides to explain the nitty-gritty and mathematics of the facts and figures qua the rotation of the reservation prima facie satisfies the Court that it is a mind-boggling exercise and it cannot be expected from the Courts to sit like statisticians or mathematicians to fix the reservations on the basis of the principles as contented by the petitioners before this Court.
26. There is no reason to make any inference of mala fides and ulterior motives merely because in a particular case, it may even prima facie appear that the reservation by rotation was altered by the State and in the background it may appear that it would sub-serve the cause of a political gain for the ruling party. Even if it were to be so, assuming while denying, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file appropriate Election Petition before the W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
14/56competent election Tribunal and not otherwise.
27. The superior and pervasive impact of constitutional bar cannot be allowed to be breached under the guise of wide judicial discretion and jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such temptation to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, should take a backseat to maintain the higher constitutional objectives of keeping the election process insulated and free from court interference, as contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
28. The fact that despite judgments on earlier occasions by this Court to the State Government to keep sufficient time-gap between the issuance of draft Notifications fixing such reservations and final Notifications, allowing the aggrieved persons to raise objections and considering the same fairly and objectively before issuing Final Notification for fixing such reservations though ought to have been followed and W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
15/56which prima facie in the present case also appears to have not been followed by the State Government, but that is not sufficient and strong enough a reason to upset the entire election process for the post of 'President' and 'Vice-President' of all the Zilla Panchayats and it is only for the State itself which is also equally bound by the judgments of the Court to fairly and genuinely comply with those directions in true letter and spirit.
29. One would have expected in such cases for fixing the category-wise reservations for the post of 'President'. and 'Vice-President' of Panchayats at the same time, when the elections for Members itself is initially announced, so that the objections, if any, for that could be well raised in time and considered by the competent authorities in the State Government and it would have been much better if the objections are decided by a speaking and reasoned quasi- judicial order by such competent authorities in a transparent manner before the final W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
16/56Notifications fixing the reservations are issued and still leaving a reasonable time for the aggrieved persons to seek judicial scrutiny of such quasi-judicial orders, deciding the objections well ahead of the commencement of the election process itself. But at the fag-end of such time period or just before the commencement of the election process or after the commencement of the election process, no such judicial scrutiny can be undertaken and in the considered opinion of this Court, the bar under Article 243-0 would get attracted in such cases.
30. There is an imminent need of passing a quasi-judicial order complying with the principles of natural justice, deciding the objections against the reservations proposed to be made under 2005 Rules as amended from time to time much ahead of holding these elections for the post of President & Vice president of Panchayats, which orders alone can be made subject to judicial scrutiny much prior to the W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
17/56issuance of the final Notification, fixing seat reservations, in exercise of subordinate legislative exercise, which is beyond the judicial scrutiny by virtue of bar under Art.243-O of the Constitution of India. This exercise should be undertaken at the time of initiating the steps for holding the elections for the membership of Panchayats themselves. The true democratic process with transparency is the tenet of free & fair elections, which is the constitutional ethos of our Republic.
31. In the present case, no such order of the Principal Secretary to whom such objections were addressed by the petitioners has been produced before this Court, so as to examine the correctness of the reasons assigned by the State Government for not fixing the reservations for these posts strictly in accordance with the Rules on the basis of the category-wise population figures and previous reservations on a rotation basis as explained from time to time by this Court, that is, once a seat has been fixed for a W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
18/56particular category, that rotation has to be carried for that category for all the Zilla Panchayats in a cyclical manner to complete the circle before such reservation again comes back to that particular Zilla Panchayat.
32. However, it is again clarified that except examining the validity of such a quasi-judicial order passed by the competent Authority of the State Government deciding such objections, no interference can be made in the election process under the Act of 1993 by Courts in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.
33. Therefore, it is for the State Government to provide sufficient time-gap between notifying the draft reservations for these posts and receiving objections, if any, and passing such quasi-judicial orders as stated above and then issue the final Notification for commencement of the election process for these posts, under the Act of 1993.
W.P.No.43169/2016Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
19/5634. The decision of the objections at a point of time just near the commencement of election process for these posts also in effect renders such judicial scrutiny impractical and impossible and attracts the constitutional bar to such judicial scrutiny. The concerned Rules are therefore required to be amended to provide for such time- frame, leaving sufficient time period of, say at least six months, for such judicial scrutiny of the quasi-judicial orders deciding such objections.
35. The earlier judgments of this Court providing for six months' period between draft Notifications and final Notifications providing for such reservations, including the process of filing objections and decision thereon by the competent authorities also does not leave any sufficient time for the judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, looking to the burden of workload on the Courts and at least a period of six months should be left between the aforesaid quasi-judicial orders and the W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
20/56commencement of election process for these posts, for the Courts to pronounce upon the validity of such quasi-judicial orders passed by the competent authority of the State.
36. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed upholding the Preliminary Objection of the State and they are accordingly dismissed. In view of this, facts of individual Zilla Panchayat reservations for these posts are not required to be discussed separately.
37. A brief look into the relevant case- laws cited at bar is given below:
First, the judgments relied upon by the State are being discussed:
38. In NANHOO MAL AND OTHERS Vs HIRA MAL AND OTHERS [(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 211], the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of Municipal elections held that to fill-up a casual vacancy in the Office of the President of the Municipal Board, Soron, in the district W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
21/56of Etah in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent - Hira Mal filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate for holding the said election and prayed that the said elections be not held on October 1st, 1974, though the election programme had been notified in the UP Gazettee on 21-09- 1974, but it was published in the Gazette of 24-09-1974, the Court finally negatived the challenge in the following words:-
"Thus the only way by which the election of a President can be called in question, is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The election itself can be questioned only on one of the three grounds mentioned above. The only ground in the present case on the basis of which the election of the appellant was questioned is that there was a non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 6, already referred to. Under the Act the non-compliance W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.22/56
with any rule or order made under the Act or any provision of the Act does not ipso facto result in the election being set aside. That result can be set aside only if the election Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the result of the election has been materially affected by such non- compliance. The jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of a President is an exclusive one conferred on the District Judge. In the circumstances there was no room for the High Court exercising its powers under Article 226 in order to set aside the election. In setting aside the election the High Court plainly erred because it did not consider whether the result of the election had been materially affected by non-compliance with the rule in question. In any case that is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge.W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.23/56
39. In Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere Vs. Smt. N. Latha and others, (W.A.No.3065/2010 & 3096- 97/2010), the Division Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice (as his lordships then here was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna], of this Court similarly upheld the Preliminary Objection as raised in the present case on the anvil of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, while dealing with a case of reservation of Joladal Grama Panchayat for woman candidate belonging to BCA category by Notification dated 05- 06-2010, as not justified while the Office of the Vice-President of the said Grama Panchayat was to be kept open for General category candidate and the Court held as under:
"Having perused the conclusion rendered in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and more particularly conclusion 4 in para 32 (extracted above). We are W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.24/56
satisfied that W.P.Nos.18323-325/2010 filed at the hands of the respondents before the election process had commenced hearing it would have interrupted, disturbed or delayed the progress of the election. Thus, we are of the view, that under Article 243(0) of the Constitution of India, the objection raised by the appellant herein during the course of proceedings in W.P.Nos.18323-325/2010 was fully justified. The contrary conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is accordingly liable to be set aside. The same is therefore hereby set aside....."
40. In T.S. Krishnappa and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition Nos.41556-557/2012 c/w. W.P.Nos.44091/2012, 42007/2012 & 42145/2012, decided on 23/11/2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice Abdul Nazeer) in dealing with the case of reservations for the post of W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
25/56Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in Taluk Panchayat of Davanagere, negatived the challenge with the following observations:
"xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 13. If the State is directed to redo the reservation of rotation at this stage, it will have a cascading effect as the election to 160 local bodies out of 176 local bodies have already been over. Therefore, keeping in view the law declared by this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, Namakkal, Salem District And Others - AIR 1952 SC 64, this Court cannot interfere with the notifications at this stage.
Petitioners have to avail the alternative remedy available to them in law for challenging the election. It should also to be noted here that having regard to the various factors, it may not be possible to make reservation with mathematical precision and W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
26/56accuracy. As long as there are legitimate considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation allowing some flexibility in the joints is permissible. In this connection, it is beneficial to notice the observations of this Court in Smt. Rekha Parashuram Kattimani Vs. State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, RDPR Department And Others - ILR 2009 KAR 3656, which is as under.
"34. Reservation of seats to the 29 Zilla Panchayaths is not the subject matter in these petitions, but its rotation to the office of Chairpersons, being Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the 29 Zilla Panchayaths.
Applying the aforesaid principle that the provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation as necessarily being a broad, W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.27/56
general and logical principle and the inherit systematic deficiencies, and not intended to be expressed in mathematical precision, and not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India, it cannot be said that rotation of the reservation too should be effected by mathematical precision. As observed supra, accommodations and adjustments having regard to political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply the justification for deviation, to some extent, in the matter of rotation while ensuring as far as may be no repetition. The differing in criteria, and the increase in the number of Districts, supra, do not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy. So long as there are legitimate W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.28/56
considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation, allowing some "flexibility in the joints", in my opinion, is permissible. I say so, also, keeping in mind the fact that census of backward classes, is unavailable and hence there is neither criteria, or foundation for rotating the reservations to the Chairpersons, for the said class. The suggested criteria such as alphabetical order of the names of the different District; reckoning the population figures by excluding the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe; and drawing of lots, to provide reservation by way of rotation to Backward classes, I am afraid none pass the test of rationality of reasonableness to qualify acceptance".
14. As undertaken by the State, it has to set right the rotation of reservation atleast for W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
29/56the next term well in advance or in the alternative take steps to amend the Act and the Rules in accordance with law. Writ petitions are dismissed with liberty with liberty to challenge the elections by filing election petitions before the Competent Court. No costs."
41. The Gram Panchayat elections of 2015 under the Notification dated 25/05/2015 came to be dealt with by another learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice R.S. Chauhan) in C. Prakash and others Vs. The State Election Commission and others) in writ Petition Nos.25693-697 & 25764- 768/2015 and connected cases, decided on 29/06/2015, in which the learned Single Judge while explaining the meaning of rotation held that it is not practically feasible to seek mathematical precision in the rotation order and therefore the rotation cannot be insisted on a specified serial order. The aim of such rotation is to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
30/56across the board to different Panchayats and if said purpose is achieved, then it cannot be said that the rotation of the categories is violated.
42. This Court respectfully agrees with these observations and in the said judgment, the learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petitions finding the petitions to be a mere clever ploy to interrupt and delay the progress of elections and therefore deserved to be dismissed. While giving a direction to the State to allow sufficient time for people to raise objections against such notified reservations for these posts, which in view of the previous decision of this Court deserves to be notified well in advance.
43. The relevant quotes from the said judgment contained in paragraphs 36, 37 and 53, 54 and 55 are quoted below for ready reference.
36. According to the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
31/56"rotation" means "one complete turn: the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation; return or succession in a series; the action of placing in succession in a series". But according to the learned counsels for the petitioners the rotation must follow a particular order, i.e. SC, ST, OBC-A, OBC-B, Unreserved (Woman). According to them, this serial order cannot be violated. If it is violated, the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioners would be illegal. Harping on this argument, different counsels have tried to point out specific instances where this serial order has been ignored.
37. Although at first blush the argument sounds impressive, but a deeper examination exposes flaws in the argument. Firstly, the said series of categories have been spelt out in Para 3(i) of the notification dated 25-05- 2015. The said order is to be taken into account for working out reserving posts to different categories. However, Para 3(i) cannot be read in isolation. While the posts W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
32/56are to be reserved in this order, but other factors equally mentioned in the notification would necessarily have to be kept in mind: i) the population of SC and ST in the Taluk, ii) their percentage to the entire population of the Taluk, iii) the descending order of the Grama Panchayat with regard to the number of members elected from a particular category,
iv) the fact whether the seat of the President was reserved for the particular category in the previous election or not; v) certain combinations of the posts of President and Vice-President, which are barred by the notification; vi) the maximum cap in case of Woman; vii) the maximum cap in case of reservation as such-this would also include the reduction in number of seats to be reserved for OBC-A and OBC-B categories. Therefore, while trying to reserve the post of President of a Grama Panchayat, the Deputy Commissioner must balance the above named factors. Hence, neither the repetition can be avoided, nor the non-inclusion of a particular category be ruled out. Therefore, to say the rotation must follow a particular order is to W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
33/56seek mathematical precision in the rotation order. Partically it is not feasible. Therefore, the word "rotation" would have to be interpreted as assignment of different reserved categories in the Grama Panchayats of a Taluk so as to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended to different Panchayats. Thus, keeping the different factors in mind, the reserved categories can be moved at random and need not be rotated in a specified order. Therefore, rotation cannot be insisted on a specified serial order. The aim of such "rotation" is to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended across the board to the different Panchayat. If the said purpose is achieved, then it cannot be said that the rotation of categories is violated.
53. Considering the fact that only a handful of petitions have been filed, that too, on the repetitive plea of the post of President in a particular Grama Panchayat not being reserved for a particular reserved category, considering the fact that the overall picture is W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
34/56being missed, considering the fact that the material facts with regard to other factors which would necessarily affect the decision are not being revealed, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions are merely a cleaver ploy to interrupt and delay the progress of the election. Hence, this court should not interfere with the election process.
54. But before ending this judgment, this Court would like to take note of a contention raised both by Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel, and by Mr. Rajagopal, the learned counsel, with regard to the timing of the notification both by the election Commission and by the Deputy Commissioners. According to both the learned counsels in the case of Smt. Rekha Parashuram kattimani (supra) this court had directed the State "to ensure issue of the Notification well in advance, in the least, six months prior to the closing of the term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, so as to enable persons aggrieved to have their say in the matter". Furthermore in the case of W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
35/56Channigappa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2000 (6) KLJ 163 (DB)] a learned Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:
We however direct that in future as and when Government exercises its statutory power and acts in the matter of rotation/delimitation/adjustment of seats, in terms of the rules, affected parties are to be given an opportunity to have their say with regard to their grievances in the said mater. We would further observe that the State Government would be well-advised to amend the rules providing for an opportunity to the affected general public to avoid and criticism on the Government.
55. Undoubtedly in a democracy, a government runs on the faith of the people. Therefore, every action of the government has W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
36/56to be above suspicion. The loss of the faith of the people not only corrodes the credibility of the government, but most importantly shakes the faith of the people in the Rule of Law. Hence, it is imperative that fairness should not only be done by the government in matter of election, but should also be seen to be done by it. This Court thus hopes that the directives issued by this Court would be followed by the State Government in the future. In case the State fails to follow the directions and the advice given by this Court, it does it at its own peril.
However, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions. Therefore, the petitions are, hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost.
44. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India, through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and others [(2000)8 Supreme Court Cases P.216], the Hon'ble W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
37/56Court in an appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against an interim order passed by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during the currency of the process of election, whereby the High Court had stayed the Notification issued by the Election Commission of India containing direction as to the manner of counting votes and made its own direction on the said subject, held that the judicial review by the High Court was limited and must satisfy the dual test evolved by the Apex Court. The Court held as under:
" It is not disputed that the Commission does have power to issue such notification. What is alleged is that the exercise of power was mala fide as the ruling party was responsible for large-scale booth capturing and it was likely to lose the success of its candidates secured by committing an election offence if material piece of evidence was collected and preserved by holding polling-W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.38/56
stationwise counting and such date being then made available to the election Tribunal. Such a dispute could have been raised before and decided by the High Court if the dual test was satisfied:
(i) the order sought from
the Court did not have the
effect of retarding,
interrupting, protracting or
stalling the counting of votes
and the declaration of the
results as only that much part of the election proceedings had remained to be completed at that stage,
(ii) a clear case of mala fides on the part of Election Commission inviting intervention of the Court was made out, that being the only ground taken in the petition.W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
39/5645. Even in an advanced democracy like USA, such election issues were dealt with by Chief Justice Warren in B.A. Reynolds vs. M.O. SIMS (377 US P.533) and the Chief Justice Warren held that some deviations from the equal population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in State Legislature. The relevant portion of judgment is quoted below:
"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.
.... So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.40/56
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".
46. Now, a brief discussion of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil is made hereunder:
47. In M. Abdul Azeez Vs. The State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, Urban Development Department And Others (ILR 2014 KAR.1839) the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.G. Ramesh) explained the meaning of 'rotation' under Municipal Corporations Act beautifully in the following terms to mean that the word 'rotation' would mean something which moves in a circular order and strictly avoiding repetition of allotments W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
41/56to any reserved category by taking into consideration all the previous allotments made in each of the Municipalities. The learned Single Judge held that when a particular reserved category is represented in all the Municipalities of a particular kind, it would complete one cycle of rotation for that category and thereafter a fresh cycle of rotation for that category shall commence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as hereunder:
11. The meaning of the principle of rotation in the context of the above referred proviso to sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act and the proviso to sub-Section (2A) of Section 42 of the Municipalities Act needs to be stated to answer the question raised in these writ petitions. It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel on both sides that there is no judgment by this Court on the interpretation of the word 'rotation' occurring in both the above provisos.W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
42/5611.1. Both the above provisos which are similarly worded state that allotment of the offices of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons reserved in the Municipalities of the State shall be allotted to the reserved categories by rotation in the prescribed manner. Though both the provisos are quoted above, for convenience, the proviso under the Municipalities Act is extracted below:
"Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation in the prescribed manner to different municipal councils.
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for the purpose of reservation of offices under this sub-section shall commence from the first ordinary election to be held after the first day of June, 1994;"W.P.No.43169/2016
Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
43/56Rotation means something which moves in a circular order. 'Rotate' means to cause to turn in a circle. The principle of rotation, in the context of the above two provisos, means that the offices reserved for each of the reserved categories requires to be allotted by rotation in a circular order among the Municipalities of a particular kind till the said category is represented in all the Municipalities of that kind and allotment to the said category cannot be repeated in any Municipality till a cycle of rotation is completed. When a particular reserved category is represented in all the Municipalities of a particular kind, it would complete one cycle of rotation for that category and thereafter, a fresh cycle rotation for that category shall commence. Every reserved category has to have an independent cycle of rotation. Every such cycle shall be independent of its previous or the succeeding cycle. Before completion of one cycle of rotation for a reserved category as explained above, if allotment to that category is repeated in any Municipality, it W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
44/56would be violative of the principle of rotation and such an allotement is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. This is the principle of rotation intended by the Legislature under the two provisos referred to above. The object of rotation is to provide representation to each of the reserved categories to the offices of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons in all the municipalities. I may add that to complete a Cycle of rotation in respect of a particular reserved category, it may take only one circular movement or several circular movements among the municipalities of a particular kind like CMCs, TMCs etc., depending upon the total number of offices reserved for that category in the State and the number of municipalities of that kind in the State. Several circular movements may become necessary due to several other reasons also. For eg., during a circular movement, when no candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is available in a municipality, then the allotment shall go to the next municipality in line in the circular order. Another example is, when a rule W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
45/56requires that both the offices in a Municipality shall not be allotted to the same category. There may be many such valid reasons for bypassing a Municipality and to go to the next in line available in the circular order or to go to a previous one which was bypassed earlier for any valid reason. This all depends upon the order of rotation laid down by the Rules framed in this behalf by the State Government. But under no circumstance, 'repetition' is permissible i.e., allotment of the office for the same reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation. Any 'repetition' would be contrary to the principle of rotation. However, in respect of the category of Backward classes, this principle of rotation is subject to the following proviso which is incorporated in both the Municipal Acts:
"Provided further that if no person falling under category "A" is available, offices reserved for that category shall W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.46/56
also be filled by the persons falling under category "B" and vice versa";
11.2 The following example would illustrate the principle of rotation:
If the office of President in a City Municipal Council is allotted to a particular reserved category, the said office cannot be allotted for the second time to the said category in that Municipal Council before completion of a cycle of rotation for that category i.e., till the said category is allotted the office of President in all the other City Municipal Councils once.
12. An elementary test to find out as to whether the principle of rotation is violated or not, is to examine as to whether any allotment to a reserved category is repeated in any Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category. If there is any allotment to any reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before completion of a cycle of rotation or W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
47/56before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category, it would be a clear violation of the principle of rotation.
13. The principle of rotation as explained above is not followed by the State Government while making allotments in the impugned notifications. Allotments made to several reserved categories in a large number of municipalities are 'repetitions'. What is 'repetition' is already explained above. It is also not the case of the State Government that there are no 'repetitions' in the allotments made in the impugned notifications.
14. The Rules framed by the State Government under both the Municipal Acts do not provide for the principle of rotation as explained above. This is evident by the very allotments made in the impugned notifications. The State Government is duty bound to amend the existing rules or to frame new rules to give effect to the principle of W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
48/56rotation which is the mandate of the Legislature."
48. In H.C. Yateesh Kumar and others Vs. The Karnataka Election Commission and others (ILR 2005 KAR.3323) [Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.L. Dattu (as his lordships here then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das], the Division Bench of this Court struck down Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by rotation) Rules, 1998 as ultra vires and void and quashed the Notifications issued by the State Election Commission insofar as it related to allotment of reserved seats to different constituencies in each Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats. Paragraphs 5 & 26 read as under Para.5. The petitioners in these writ petitions are voters in different villages in the State of Karnataka and they are eligible and qualified to contest for the post of Taluk Panchayat member the Zilla Panchayat W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
49/56member. The petitioners in all these petitions have prayed to strike down the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation), Rules 1998 (hereinafter called the 'Rules 1998') as illegal, void and ultra vires to Article 243D of the Constitution read with Section 162 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It is further prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications issued by the 1st respondent State Election Commission relating to delimitation of the Constituencies and reservation of the Constituencies in Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats in the State.
Para.26: The 1st Respondent State Election Commission allotted the reserved seats for Schedule Tribe and Scheduled Caste as stated above by taking into consideration the population of these reserved categories in the respective Taluks and one each to every taluk in a District. Sri. Raviverma Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel contends that this distribution of Zilla Panchayat seats to every W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
50/56Taluk in the District and on the basis of population is contrary to Article 243-D of the Constitution and also Section 162 of the Act, 1993. By this method of allotment of seats as per sub rule (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of Rules 1998 prepetuates the reservation of certain Constituencies for certain reserved categories. Somwarpet in Kodagu District is having largest SC population and therefore in every election 2 seats will be allotted to Somwarpet constitutency. Further, this method deprives the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes category people in other Constituencies to have their representation in the Zilla Panchayat. By perpetuation of reservation in certain constituencies will deprive the other community people in the same constituency from contesting the elections. There is force in this submission of the Learned Senior Counsel and we accept the same. Therefore, the allotment of seats on the basis of population and by Taluk wise is contrary to Article 243-D of the Constitution. Article 243- D of the Constitution and Section 162 of the Act 1993, specifies that the reserved seats for W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
51/56Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste are to be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. But as per sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1998, the 1st respondent State Election Commission allotted the seats Taluk wise and on the basis of population and as much the same is contrary to the requirement of Article 243-D of the Constitution and Section 162 of the Act, 1993.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar informed the Court that an appeal against this judgment is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Moreover, the Rules of 1998 are not applicable in the present case as this Court is not presently concerned with a similar controversy as was involved in that case.
49. In H. Shivappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2005) 4 Kar.Law Journal 328], the learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the elections to Municipalities, held that there is W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
52/56a distinction between the elections to the post of Chairpersons of Municipalities and the election to the Municipalities itself in the following terms:
36. The bar is in respect of the examination of the question of elections to the Municipalities. It is to be noticed that the election to Municipalities is not the same as elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities, as indicated in Article 243-P (e) of the Constitution.
37. Even in Article 243-P(e) in fact a clear distinction has been maintained between a municipality and the Chairpersons of the municipality. Separate provisions providing for reservations have been made in Article 243-T for elections to the Municipalities and for elections to the posts of Chairpersons in the Municipalities. The word 'municipality' does not automatically take in its fold the Chairpersons of the municipality. The bar contained in Article 243-ZG is in respect of the elections to any municipality and not W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.53/56
elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities. The bar operates if it is actually so provided for and not by way of an analogy or by way of an extension, if one should understand the position on the settled principles of the interpretation.
38. It is not possible to include the elections to the posts of Chairpersons to a municipality within the meaning of the word 'municipality', as the provision is one which curtails the jurisdiction of the Courts, imposes fetters on the jurisdiction, until and unless the bar is express and unambiguous.
The fact situation before the learned Single Judge in that matter was different from the facts involved in the present case. Therefore, that judgment is of no help to the petitioners in the present case.
50. In L. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka (1988 Indian Law Reports Kar.P.2121), the Division Bench held that the only course open to a vigilant citizen is to W.P.No.43169/2016 Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
54/56have the illegality rectified before the election and if not done, as far as the Election Tribunal is concerned, it had no jurisdiction to go into any question relating to the legality of the electoral roll.
This judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners in the present case as the issue is not pertaining to challenge to the electoral roll in the present case.
51. In Karnataka State Election Commission, Bangalore Vs. Sri.G. Sangappa in Writ Appeal Nos.4506 to 4508 of 2010 decided on 3rd December, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others (supra) also dealt with the provisions of Rules of 1998 and held that the rotation in the matter of reservation contemplated under the aforesaid provisions had not been given effect through the impugned Notification dated 08/11/2010.
W.P.No.43169/2016Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
55/56Since the appeal against the previous Division Bench decision in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others (supra) is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the aforesaid reasons also, this judgment is also of little help to the petitioners in the present case.
52. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the reasons assigned above, this Court is satisfied that these writ petitions cannot be entertained on merits and upon factual scrutiny of the reservations fixed category- wise in the election for the post of 'President' and 'Vice-President' for the year 2016 of Zilla Panchayats, the same cannot be quashed and no mala fides are established on the part of the State to have fixed these reservations for any illegal purpose and the writ jurisdictions in the present case is barred by Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and the writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed accordingly. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs."
W.P.No.43169/2016Dated 21st June, 2017 N. Swetha and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
56/56In view of the aforesaid decision, this Writ Petition is also dismissed in same terms. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL