Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs R Basavaraj R on 21 April, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.551/2020
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.661/2020, WRIT APPEAL NO.53/2021
WRIT APPEAL NO.564/2020, WRIT APPEAL NO.585/2020
WRIT APPEAL NO.713/2020 (LB-ELE)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.551/2020
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE 577001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO THE RETURNING OFFICER,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE 577213
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577001
DAVANAGERE
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE-577001
2
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
CHIKKABLLAPUR DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
AND ELECTION OFFICER
SIDLAGHATTA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUKA AND DISTRICT-562101
10. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
12. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
13. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
14. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL, KOPPAL 582331
15. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL 582331
16. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560001
17. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKABALLAPUR-562101.
3
18. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.
19. DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
20. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SOMWARPET KODAGU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-571236.
21. TAHSILDAR AND ELECTION OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SOMWARPET KODAGU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-571236.
22. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
23. DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
VISHWESHWAWRAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGAURU-560001
24. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ARSIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-573103
25. ASSISTANT COMMISSISONER AND
ELECTION OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-573103
26. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
4
27. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
28. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO AND RETURNING OFFICER
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
29. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
30. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401
31. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SRIRANGAPATTANA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
32. THE TASHILDAR
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER
SRIRNGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 438
33. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE
34. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA 577501
35. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001
36. DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEDKAR VEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
37. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANNUR MYSORE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-571101
5
38. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
39. UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
40. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NIRVACHANA NILAYA
MAHARANI COLLEGE CIRCLE
SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
41. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGLAORE 560001.
42. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001
43. DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR
VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
AMBEKDAR VEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
44. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
H D KOTE MYSORE DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-571101
45. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M S BUILDING BANGALURU-560001
46. THE ASSILSTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM RETURNING OFFICER
TIPTUR SUB DIVISION TIPTRU TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201
6
47. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
48. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA -571 401
49. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA DIVISION
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
50. THE TASHILDAR
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER
K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA-571426
51. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING BENGALURU -560 001
52. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMANGALURU DISTRICT
CHICKMAGALURU-577101
53. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB DIVISION
CHIKKAMANGALURU-57101
CHICKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT
54. THE TAHASILDAR
SRINGERI TALUK SHRUNGERI -577 139
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
55. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR,
BENGALURU-560001
56. THE SECRETARY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTHA NAGARA,
BENGALURU-560052
57. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS,
7
AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001
58. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101
59. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE-560001
60. CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202
61. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKMANGALORE
CHIKMANGALORE DIST 577101
62. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
63. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT OFFICE
AT SOWLANGA ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA -577201.
64. THE TAHASILDAR CUM ELECTION OFFICER
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
65. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001.
REP. BY IS UNDER SECRETARY
66. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-56001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
67. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA 562102
8
68. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION AND ELECTION OFFICER,
BELLURU TOWN PANCHAYATH,
MANDYA TALUKA AND DISTRICT.
69. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
70. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
71. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR DIST-586101
72. THE TASILDAR
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER
MUDDEBIHAL, BIJAPUR DIST-586212
73. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001.
74. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM RETURNING OFFICER
TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION
TIPTUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K.NOVADGI, AG
A/W SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
AND:
1. R.BASAVARAJ
S/O RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, COUNCILOR,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAGIRI,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577213,
RESIDING AT WARD NO 15,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
DAVANAGERE 577213
2. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHANNAGIRI TOWN
DAVANAGERE 577213
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
9
3. R DINESH BABU
S/O RAJAPPA, AGE 49 YEARS
COUNCILLOR CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARIAHARA- 577601
R/A SUNAGARA BEEDI
HALLADAKERE HARIHARA
DAVANGERE DISTRIC T - 577601
4. HARIHARA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
5. SMT.CHITHRA
W/O N MANOHAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
COUNCILOR WARD NO.03
SIDLAGHATA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
R/AT PETROL BUNK ROAD,
OPP SHARADA SCHOOL SIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
6. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NO.8 1ST FLOOR KSCMF
ANNEX BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560052
7. SIDLAGHATTA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105
8. SRI H V CHANDREGOWDA
S/O VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, R/AT THANNIRUHALLI,
1ST CROSS, WARD NO.33,
HASSAN-573201.
9. H C GIRISH
S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT DOOR NO.1483
PARK ROAD, N R EXTENSION
HASSAN-573201
10. SRI H K YOGENDRAKUMAR
S/O H N KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT NO.2140
10
GOVT COLLEGE ROAD
HASSAN-573201
11. SRI CHANDREGOWDA
S/O MYLARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT DOOR NO.5142
4TH CROSS RAVINDRANAGARA
HASSAN-573201
12. SIR SYED AKBAR
S/O SYED KHASIM
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT HUNASINAKERE LAYOUT
NEAR GM SCHOOL
HASSAN-573201
13. SRI J MANJUNATH
S/O JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT ASHOKA BADAVANE
ADUVALLY WARD NO.02
HASSAN-573201
14. SRI C R SHANKARA
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
CMC MEMBER
RESIDING AT SRISHASHISADANA
CHANNAPATNA WARD NO.34
HASSAN-573201
15. SRI PASHANTH NAGARAJ
S/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT SHIVJYOTHI NAGAR
ADLIMANE ROAD
HASSAN-573201
16. SRI AMEERJAN
S/O ABUDL HAKEEMSAB
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT WARD NO.20
PENSION MOHALLA
HASSAN-573201
17. SRI C KRANTI
S/O B V CHANDRAPRASADH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
CMC MEMBER
11
RESIDING AT ASHWANATHANAGARA
WARD NO.30
HASSAN-573201
18. SRI RAFEED AHMED
S/O MAHAMMED KALANADAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT EDGA ROAD ABAD
MOHALLA WARD NO.19
HASSAN-573201
19. SMT N HEMALATHA
W/O KAMAL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
CMC MEMBER, R/AT HOUSE NO.783
19TH CROSS VIVEKNAGARA
HASSAN-573201
20. SMT JANAKI
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
CMC MEMBER
RESIDING AT BAGADER KOPPAL
SALAGAME ROAD HASSAN-573201
21. SMT NASEEMA BHANU
W/O IRSHAD PASHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
CMC MEMBER
RESIDING AT KALYAD SAB VATARA
5TH CROSS WARD NO.21
PENSION MOHALLA
HASSAN-573201
22. SMT ASHWINI
W/O K.R. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT LAXMIPURA BADAVANE,
NEAR KISAN CONVENT, HASSAN-573201
23. SMT. RAZIYA BEGUM
W/O AKMAL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT WARD NO.19
HASSAN-573201.
12
24. VASUDEVA S.H
S/O HANUMANTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT LAKSHMINIVAS,
UDAYAGIRI, HASSAN-573201.
25. SMT RUHIN TAJ
W/O ASIF PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS,
HASSAN-573201.
26. SMT. VIJIYA
W/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT 3RD MAIN,
SIDDIAH NAGAR, HASSAN-573201.
27. SMT. GHOUSIYA ALMAS
W/O HAFIZUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT MEHABOOB NAGAR,
MOCHI COLONY, HASSAN-573201
28. SMT. ALFIYA FAYAZ
W/O FAZAY AHAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER,
RESIDING AT NO.99, BHARAT MANZIL,
ADAVI GOWDA COMPOUND,
MOCHI COLONY, HASSAN-573201.
29. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HASSAN
HASSAN DIST-573201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
30. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARIHAR
DAVENGERI DIST-577601
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
31. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
13
KOPPAL
KOPPAL DIST-583231
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
32. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BAGALKOT,
BAGALKOT DIST-587314
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
33. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
DANDELI,
UTTAR KANNADA DIST-581325
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
34. SRI PARASHURAM
S/O LATE HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KOPPAL, R/AT NO 5/7/691,
KURABARA ONI, KOPPAL 583231
35. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KOPPAL
KOPPAL 582331
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
36. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HASSAN
HASSAN DIST 573201
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
37. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ARASIKERE, HASSAN DIST 573103
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
38. SRI ASHOK REDDY K A
S/O ADHINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
TMC COUNCILOR, RESIDENT OF 21ST WARD
NO 705, BAGEPALLI TOWN,
BAGEPALLI -561207
CHICKABALAPUR DISTRICT.
39. SMT JAYANTHI SHIVAKUMAR
W/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A 127/5 M D BLOCK
SOMWARPET TALUK
SOMWARPET HOBLI
14
SOMWARPET KODAGU-571236
40. M SAMIULLA
S/O MOHAMMED SAB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 5273, HULIYARA ROAD RIGHT SIDE,
ARSIKERE, ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
41. VIDHYADHARA B N
S/O NAGARAJU B
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT BASAVANNA DEVASTANA ROAD
ARSIKERE, HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
42. RAJASHEKARA E M
S/O MURUGENDRAPPA E K
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT K T STREET, ARSIKERE
KARIAMMA TEMPLE ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
43. ZAKEER HUSSEN
S/O S JABBAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/ATJANUKAL NAGAR,
ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
44. KANTHESH R
S/O RAJU J
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD,
BASAWESHWARA NAGAR,
ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
45. MANOHAR
S/O MASLAMANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT 2./ 210. 1ST CROSS
HASSAN ROAD LEFT SIDE
AMBEDKAR NAGAR ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
46. DAYANANDA
S/O VENKATRAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT HEJABGONDANHALLI
JAJUR ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
15
47. PUTTASWAMY
S/O NAGANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT MINI VIDHANSOUDAH BACK SIDE
GOLLARAHATT, JAJUR ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
48. MADHURA G N
W/O HARISH KUMAR H N
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT HASAN ROAD,
LEFT SIDE NEAR HARALLIKATTE
ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
49. DARSHAN A V
S/O VISHWANATH K
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT KARIYAMMA DEVASTHANA ROAD
2ND CROSS, ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
50. SRI HARSHAVARSHAN RAJ
S/O MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT ARSIKERE, SARASWATHIPURAM
BEHIND SADANATAKIS,
3RD CROSS ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
51. SMT AYISHA
W/O SYED SIKANDER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT SUNNI CHOWK,
4TH CROSS ARSIKERE AT POST
ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
52. SMT SHAMABANU
W/O MUBARAKA PASHA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT MUZAWAR MOHALLA
ARASIKERE ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
53. SMT RESHMA
W/O YUNUS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT 131-4, HULIYAR ROAD
16
LEFT SIDE, ARSIKERE,
HASSAN KARNATAKA-573103
54. SMT FAZBOON BANU
W/O ABDUL JAMEEL B S
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT 625, 2ND CROSS,
M M ROAD ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
55. SMT ANNAPOORNA N
W/O SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT HASSAN ROAD
IOO ABHABETA TENOKE
VTC ARASIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
56. SRI K M ESHWARAPPA
S/O K R MALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT KALANAKOPPALU,
ARASIKIERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
57. SRI MELA GAYANAPPA
S/O HONNAGNYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND MALLESHWARA
MALLESHWARA NAGAR
LALITHA NILAYA ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
58. SRI B S CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O B S SIDDALINGARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT 5TH CROSS, MALLESHWARA NAGARA
ARSIKERE, HASSAN, KARNATAKA-573103
59. SMT PREMA
W/O T S MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT DARSHANA NILAYA,
LAKSHMIPURA ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
60. SMT KALAI ARASI
W/O SUDHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT 2ST CROSS, HASSAN ROAD LEFT SIDE,
17
ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
61. SMT SUJATHA K P
W/O RAMESHA R
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND POLICE QUARTERS
MARUTHI NAGAR ARSIKERE, HASSAN
KARNATAKA-573103
62. T MANJULA
W/O SRINKANTH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
MEMBER, NAYAKANAHATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT C
HALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
63. S UMAPATHI
S/O M R THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
MEMBER NAYAKANAHATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
64. THE NAYAKANAHATI TOWN PANCHAYAT
NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536
REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
65. GEETHA
W/O MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.3260 KEMMANAGUNDI STREET
GANJAM SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571438
66. S N DAYANAND
S/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.8/11 KUMBARA STREET
PWD QUARTERS STREET
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438
67. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SRIRANGAPATNA
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
18
68. SMT RAJESWARI ANAND
MEMBER OF TOWN PANCHAYATS,
WARD NO.19, HOSADURGATOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
RESIDING AT MEDARA STREET
OLD TANK ROAD HOSADURGA TOWN
HOSADURGA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527
69. TOWN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
HOSADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527
70. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT C60 BANNURU DIVISION-1
BANNURU T NARSIPURA
MYSORE-571101
71. B R SRINIVAS
S/O RAJEGOWDA
R/AT WARD NO.6 GARADI STREET
BANNUR (RURAL) BANNUR
MYSORE -571101
72. SMT. LEELAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O SRI P R SIDDANNA
DEVELAPPANA BEEDI MOLAKALMURU
CHITRADURGA -577 535
73. SRI RAMAJINAYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O DODDA BASAIAH
NO.121 KOTE BADAVANE
MOLAKALMURU
CHITRADURGA -577 535
74. SRI NAGARAJA S
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SIDDANNA DEVALAPPANA BEEDI
MOLAKALMURU
CHITRADURGA-577 535
75. SRI HARISH KUMAR K P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O PALAKSHA K
NO.5 NEAR HIRE MATA DEVALAPPANA BEEDI
MOLAKALMURU
19
CHITRADURGA-577535
76. MOLKALMURU TOWN PANCHAYATH
H R ROAD MOLAKALMURU
CHITRADURGA DIST-577535
REP BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
77. N M BHAGYAMMA
AGED 46 YEARS,
W/O SRI JAYARAMAPPA,
D/O G. MUNIYAPPA,
R/AT NO.171, VENTAPPA GARDEN,
BEHIND SATADIUM, KARANJIKATTE,
KOLAR TOWN 563101
78. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
KOLAR CITY MUNICIPALITY,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563101
79. SRI SOMASHEKARA
S/O B VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT KASABA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK VADDARAGUDI
MSYORE -571 114
80. SRI PREM SAGAR
S/O SANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT YARAHALLI KAVAL VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI H D KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571 114
81. SRI MADHU KUMAR M
S/O LATE R MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1835 HOUSING BOARD COLONY
WATER TANK H D KOTE TOWN
HEGGADADEVANKOTE
MYSORE-571 114
82. SRI MAHESHA
S/O SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
MEMBER TIPTUR,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NO.164, SADASHIVAPPANAGAR
Y T ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201
20
83. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
B H ROAD, TIPTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201
84. SMT. PANKAJA
W/O PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
OLD KIKKERI ROAD, K R PETE TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426
85. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
K R PETE MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
86. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BAILHONGAL BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591102
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
87. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BHATKAL KARWAR DISTRICT-581320
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
88. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BIRUR CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577116
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
89. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
GAJENDRAGAD GADAG DISTRICT-581117
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
90. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HUKKERI BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 309
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
91. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KARKAL, UDUPI DISTRICT-574104
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
92. SMT RUPA M PAI
W/O MURALIDHAR PAI
21
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O WARD NO.03, BVHARATHI BEEDI
SHRUNGERI-577139
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
93. THE SHRUNGERI PATANA PANCHAYATH
SRINGERI CHIKKAMAGALURU
BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER-577 139
94. P BALA SUBRAMANAYAM
S/O PEDDERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
COUNCELLOR WARD NO.7,
PAVAGADA TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
R.AT KUMBARA BEEDI, WARD NO.11,
PAVAGADA TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202
95. CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-561202
96. SRI RAMESH H P
S/O PUTTAYYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ELECTED CANDIDATE WARD NO.8
MUDIGERE TOWN MUNICIPALITY
MUDIGERE PIN-577132
CHIKKAMANGALORE DIST
97. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MUDIGERE CHIKMANGALORE
CHIKMANGALORE DIST 577132
98. JAFAR. P
S/O PATTI MOHIDEEN SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
THE COUNCILOR SHIRALAKOPPA
TOWN PANCHAYAT, R/AT MATADA GADDE
5TH CROSS SHIRALAKOPPA
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577428
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
99. CHIEF OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN PANCHAYAT
SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577427.
100. SRI RAMALINGIAH
22
S/O SRI BOMMAIAH,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, NAYAKANA KOPPALLU,
BELLUR VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571418
101. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF ANNEX BUIDLING,
CUNNINGAHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560052
102. BELLURU TOWN PANCHAYATH
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 562105
103. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.1204, GUTTAHALLI PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.
104. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
105. THE PAVAGDA TOWN PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
PAVAGADA TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.
106. SRI MEHBOOB HYDARSE BAGBAM
S/O HYDARSE BAGBAM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT BHARPETGALI NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
107. SRI KASIM SAB ALI SAB CHILUNKHORU
S/O ALI SAB CHILUNKHORU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT NADGOWDAVONI NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
108. SRI HANUMANTH KANIGERE
S/O NILAPPA KANIGERE
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT PEDDARPETTE NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
23
109. SMT BASLINGAMMA MALLAPPA MASKI
W/O MALLAPPA MASKI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT DESHMUKH STREET
NALATWAD TALUK MUDDEBIHAL
VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
110. SRI BHEEMAVVA LAKSHMI KASHATRI
W/O VENKATESH KSHATRI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT NEAR VEERESHWAR COLLEGE
NALATWAD TALUK MUDDEBIHAL
VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
111. SMT SANGAMMA M GANGANAGOUDA
W/O MAHANTAPPA GANGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT VINAYAKNGAR NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
112. SRI DASTAGIRSAB HUSSAINSA ARESHANKAR
S/O HUSSAINSA ARESHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT MEHBOOB NAGAR
NALATWAD TALUK MUDDEBIHAL
VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
113. SRI HIREMATH SHIVASHANKARAYYA
S/O BASAYYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT BHARPETGALI NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
114. SMT SALMA BEGAM NADADAL
W/O ABDUL RAZZAK NADADAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
R/AT BHARPETGALI NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
115. SRI PRITHVIRAJ S NADAGOUDAR
S/O SOMASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
COUNCILLOR TOWN PANCHYATH NALTWAD
24
R/AT NADAGOUDARVONI NALATWAD TALUK
MUDDEBIHAL VIJAPURA DISTRICT-586124
116. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH
NALATWAD MUDDEBIHAL TALUK
BIJAPUR DIST-586124
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
117. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH
NAYAKANHATTI CHELLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST-577536
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
118. THE TOWN PANCHAYATH
KUDATHINI
BELLARY DIST-583115
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
119 SRI GANESHA
S/O BALUSWAMY
AGED 42 YEARS
MEMBER, TIPTUR CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
NO.260, NEHRUNAGAR Y T ROAD
TIPTUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN-572201.
120. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
B H ROAD TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
121. SMT.C.M.SUMITRA RAMESH
W/O S.M.RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WARD NO.8, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
SIDHHARTH NAGAR, BEHIND GANGAMMA TEMPLE
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
122. SMT.PADMINI
W/O P.K.KISHAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WARD NO.1, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
C.R.LAYOUT KOTE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
123. SURESH K.
S/O KODANDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WARD NO.2, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
25
BHOVI COLONY, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
124. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O CHIKKANARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WARD NO.4, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
KOTE ANJENABADAVANE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
125. AYSHA SULATANA
W/O MOHAMMED ASIFULLA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
WARD NO.5, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
V.J.T. ROAD, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
126. M.V.VENKATASWAMY
S/O VENKATESHWAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WARD NO.9, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
HEALTH COLONY, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
127. N.SUGUNA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WARD NO.21, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
ARALEPETE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
128. MUSTRUNNISA
W/O ANSAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WARD NO.24, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
2ND KARMIKA NAGARA, ANSARI MOHALLA
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
129. FARAHANA TAJ
W/O MOHAMMED NIZAMUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WARD NO.27, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
MEHBOOB NAGAR
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
130. E.ROOPA
W/O NAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
26
WARD NO.30, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
KOTE, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
131. RAGHU (MILITARY)
S/O SRINIVAS V
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WARD NO.23, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
NO.7000/117/01 PREME NAGAR
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
132. S.N.NARAYANSWAMY
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WARD NO.13, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
OLD HOSPITAL ROAD
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
133. APSAR PASHA
S/O LATE BASHA SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WARD NO.29, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
AZAD NAGAR, NEAR NEW POLICE QUARTERS
SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
134. MOULA
S/O ABDUL SAMAD
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WARD NO.12, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
GANDHI NAGAR, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
135. R.VASANTHAMMA
W/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WARD NO.15, MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
BHARTINAGAR, SIDLAGHATTA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105
136. SMT.SHWETHA
W/O SABAREESH YADAV
AGED 26 YEARS
R/O DOOR NO.736, 5TH CROSS
KUVEMPUNAGAR, KOLAR-563 101
137. SRI.PRAVEEN N.S.
S/O SUBBARAYAPPA N.P
27
AGED 35 YEARS
R/A CHAMNEGOWDA NILAYA
WARD NO.12, P.C.EXTENSION
KOLAR-563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.
FOR IMPLEADING APPELLANT NO.74
SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA, FOR SRI.VIVEK HOLLA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR C/R-5
SRI.JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.A.MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV. FOR C/R-8-28 & 34
SRI.K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R82
SRI.SANDESH T.B., ADV. FOR C/R84
SRI.M.ELLAPPA REDDY, ADV. FOR C/R103
SRI.H.C.PRATEEK, ADV. FOR C/R39
SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.ARNAV A.BAGALWADI, ADV. FOR C/R40 TO 61, C/R70 & 71
SRI.P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R3
SRI.GOUTHAM C.ULLAL, ADV. FOR R38
SRI.B.N.PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R98
SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADV. FOR R77
SRI.J.G.CHANDRA MOHAN, ADV. FOR R78
SRI.S.MOHAN, ADV. FOR R68
SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV. FOR R121 TO R135
SRI.GIREESHA KODGI, ADV. FOR R97
R2, R6 SERVED
V/C/O DATED 15.02.2021, R-7, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 81
85 TO 92, 95, 99, 100, 105, 108, 109, 112, 118 &
119 ARE SERVED
SRI.H.MALATESH, ADV. FOR R96, 30, 36, 63, 64 TO 69, 72 TO
76, 79, 80, 83, 93, 94, 101, 102, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114,
115, 116, 117, 120 SERVED
SRI.VINAYAKA, ADV. FOR R136 & R137)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.11566/2020 C/W WP NOS.11420/2020 (LB-ELES, 11427/2020 (LB-
ELE), 11630/2020 (LB-ELE), 11637/2020 (LB-ELE), 11643/2020 (LB-
ELE) 11718/2020 (LB-ELE) 11727/2020 (LB-ELE) 11761/2020 (LB-ELE)
11762/2020 (LB-ELE) 11777/2020 (LB-ELE) 11779/2020 (LB-ELE),
11782/2020 (LB-ELE), 11710/2020 (LB-ELE), 11716/2020 (LB-ELE),
11860/2020 (LB-ELE), 11951/2020 (LB-ELE), 12265/2020 (LB-ELE),
12367/2020 (LB-ELE), 12790/2020 (LB-ELE) AND 12844/2020 (LB-ELE)
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
28
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.661/2020
BETWEEN:
1. KAVITHA
W/O ANDAPPA ULLAGADDI
AGE.33 YEARS, OCC.HOUSE HOLD WORK
AND ADHYAKSHA
R/O BASAVESHWARA NAGAR
MUNDARGI-582118, DIST. GADAG
2. SHIVAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA CHIKKANNAVAR
AGE.55 YEARS
OCC.AGRICULTURE AND UPAHDYAKSHA
R/O KOTE BHAGA, MUNDARGI-582118
DIST. GADAG
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
MUNDARGI TOWN
MUNDARGI-582118
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K.NOVADGI, AG A/W
SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.11566/2020 AND APPLICABILITY TO THE RESULTS OF
ELECTIONS TO THE POSTS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNSEL, MUNDARGI AND TO PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDERS UNDER ARTILE 226 AND /OR 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.53/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LATHASHRI @ LATHA
29
W/O GAVISIDDAPPA CHINNUR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
ELECTRED COUNCILLOR,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KOPPALA 58231.
2. SMT JAREENA BEGUM
W/O KHAJA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ELECTED COUNCILLOR,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
KOPPALA 58231.
... APPELLANTS
(BY PROF.RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001.
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL,
KOPPAL-582331.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
KOPPAL,
KOPPAL 582331.
4. SRI PRASHURAM
S/O LATE HANAMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICPAL COUNCIL,
KOPPAL R/AT NO.5/7/691,
KURUBARA ONI, KOPPAL 583231.
5. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KOPPAL, KOPPAL 582331,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
6. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
COUNCIL KOPPAL, KOPPAL 582331,
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECTUVIE OFFICER.
7. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT 573103,
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
30
8. SRI H V CHANDREGOWDA
S/O VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, R/AT THANNIRUHALLH,
1ST CROSS, WARD NO.33,
HASSAN-573201.
9. SRI H C GIRISH
S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
DOOR NO.1483, PARK ROAD,
N R EXTENSION , HASSAN-573201.
10. SRI H K YOGENDRAKUMAR
S/O H.N.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
NO. 2140, GOVT COLLEGE ROAD,
HASSAN-573201.
11. SRI CHANDREGOWDA
S/O MYLARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
DOOR NO.5142, 4TH CROSS,
RAVINDRANAGARA, HASSAN-573201.
12. SRI SYED AKBAR
S/O SYED KHASIM,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
HUNASINAKERE LAYOUT,
NEAR GM SCHOOL,
HASSAN-573201.
13. SRI J MANJUNATH
S/O JAVARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
ASHOKA BADAVANE, ADUVALLY,
WARD NO.02, HASSAN-573201.
14. SRI C R SHANKARA
S/O RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
SRISHASHISADANA, CHANNAPATNA,
WARD NO.34, HASSAN-573201.
31
15. SRI PRASHANT NAGARAJ
S/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
SHIVJYOTHI NAGAR, ADLIMANE ROAD,
HASSAN-573201
16. SRI AMEERJAN
S/O ABUDL HAKEEMSAB,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
WARD NO.20, PENSION MOHALLA,
HASSAN-573201
17. SRI K KANTHI
S/O B.V. CHANDRAPRASADH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER RESIDING AT
VISHWANATHANAGARA, WARD NO.30,
HASSAN-573201.
18. SRI RAFEEQ AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED KALANADAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER RESIDING AT
EDGA ROAD, ABAD MOHALLA,
WARD NO.19, HASSAN-573201.
19. SMT HEMALATHA
W/O KAMAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
HOUSE NO.783, 19TH CROSS,
VIVEKANAGARA, HASSAN-573201.
20. SMT JANAKI
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
BAGADER KOPPAL, SALAGAME ROAD,
HASSAN-573201.
21. SMT NASEENA BHANU
W/O IRSHAD PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER RESIDING AT
KALYADI SAB VATARA
5TH CROSS, WARD NO 21,
PENSION MOHALLA,
32
HASSAN-573201
22. SMT ASHWINI
W/O K.R. MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
LAXMIPURA BADAVANE,
NEAR KISAN CONVENT, HASSAN-573201
23. SMT RAZIYA BEGAUM
W/O AKMAL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
WARD NO.19 HASSAN-573201.
24. SRI VASUDEVA S H
S/O HANUMANTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
LAKSHMINIVAS, UDAYAGIRI,
HASSAN-573201.
25. SMT RUHIN TAJ
W/O ASIF PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
6TH CROSS, HASSAN-573201.
26. SMT VIJAYA
W/O NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
3RD MAIN, SIDDIAH NAGAR,
HASSAN-573201.
27. SMT GHOUSIYA ALMAS
W/O HAFIZUL REHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT
MEHABOOB NAGAR, MOCHI COLONY,
HASSAN-573201.
28. SMT ALIFYA FAYAZ
W/O FAZAY AHAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
CMC MEMBER, RESIDING AT NO.99,
BHARAT MANZIL, ADAVI GOWDA COMPOUND,
MOCHI COLONY, HASSAN-573201.
29. STATE OF KARNATAKA
33
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001.
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
30. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.
31. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ALSO RETURNING OFFICER,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.
32. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ALSO RETURINGING OFFICER,
DAVENGERI 577601.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
33. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583231,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
34. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BAGALKOT,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT 587314,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
35. THE CITY MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
DANDELI, TTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 581325,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF, EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, AG A/W
SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R29 TO R31)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.11492/2020 AND W.P.NO.11439/2020 (LB-ELE) (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.564/2020
BETWEEN
E.VINAY KUMAR
S/O E ANJANEYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/O 4-4-103/A, MANTRALAYAM ROAD
RAICHUR-584101
34
COUNCILLOR
THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
RAICHUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI: SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577601
DAVANAGERE
3. HARIHARA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 601
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577001
5. R DINESH BABU
S/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
COUNCILLOR, CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577601
R/A SUNAGARA BEEDI, HALLADAKERE
HARIHARA, DAVANGERE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : PRABHULING K NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
A/W SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AGA )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.11420/2020 TO THE EXTENT OF RAICHUR CITY
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL WHICH IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
DISPUTE.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.585/2020
BETWEEN
1. GANGADHAR SWAMY
S/O KARIBASAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PRESIDENT KUSTAGI TOWN MUNICIPALITY
KUSTAGI, DIST KOPPAL-583277
35
2. RAJESHWARI
W/O SIDDAPPA ADOOR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
VICE PRESIDENT KUSTAGI TOWN MUNICIPALITY
KUSTAGI, DIST KOPPAL-583277
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI : S B MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL-583231
3. TAHASILDAR
THE RETURNING OFFICER
KUSTAGI TOWN
KUSTAGI-583277
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL
A/W SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.11566/2020 C/W WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.,
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.713/2020
BETWEEN
SRI. D. S. ANAND REDDY (BABU)
S/O P V DYAVAPPA
AGED AGED 44 YEARS
PRESIDENT OF CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHIKKABALLAPURA
BHUVANESHWARI CIRCLE
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101
R/AT NO.1296 23RD WARD 2ND CROSS
CHAMARAJPET
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRIHARI A.V., ADV.)
36
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA -562101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
AND THE RETURNING OFFICER
CHIKKBALLAPURA CITY,
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHIKKBALLAPURA-561207
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, AG
A/W SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.11.2020 IN W.P.NOS.11566/2020
(LB-ELE), DATED 19.11.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.11566/2020 C/W W.P.NO.11420/2020 (LB-ELE), 11427/2020
(LB-ELE), 11439/2020 (LB-ELE), 11492/2020 (LB-ELE) 11630/2020 (LB-
ELE) 11637/2020 (LB-ELE) 11643/2020 (LB-ELE) 11718/2020 (LB-ELE)
11727/2020 (LB-ELE) 11761/2020 (LB-ELE), 11762/2020 (LB-ELE),
11777/2020 (LB-ELE), 11779/2020 (LB-ELE), 11782/2020 (LB-ELE),
11710/2020 (LB-ELE), 11716/2020 (LB-ELE), 11860/2020 (LB-ELE),
11951/2020 (LB-ELE) 12265/2020 (LB-ELE), 12367/2020 (LB-ELE),
12453/2020 (LB-ELE) 12495/2020 (LB-ELE), 12790/2020 (LB-ELE),
12844/2020 (LB-ELE) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.03.2021, THIS DAY,
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
37
JUDGMENT
IA.7/2020 for impleading respondents 121 to 135 and IA.2/2021 for impleading respondents 136 to 137 and IA.1/2021 for impleading appellant No.74 are allowed.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in all these cases, they were heard analogously together and a common judgment is being passed.
2. The present writ appeals are arising out of the order dated 19.11.2020 passed in W.P.No.11566/2020 and other connected matters, by which the learned Single Judge has quashed the notification dated 8.10.2020 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 r/w Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1965 reserving the Posts of President and Vice President in various local bodies i.e., City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths.
3. The learned Single Judge has passed one common order hence, all the writ appeals are being decided by a singular order by this Court.
4. The facts of W.A.No.551/2020 which is arising out W.P.No.11566/2020 are dealt with as under; 38
A writ petition was preferred by one R.Basavaraj s/o Rudrappa, who is an elected member of Town Municipal Council, Channagiri. He was elected in the general elections held on 31.8.2018. He was elected from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category and the period of members of Municipal Council is five (5) years. The election to the post of President and Vice President of the Council is held once in two and a half (2½) years.
5. The facts further reveal that the State of Karnataka had notified reservation under Rule 13 and 13A of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965) in respect of various City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths on 3.9.2018 and thereafter, a modified notification was issued on 6.9.2018 modifying some reservations in respect of the earlier notification issued on 3.9.2018.
6. Large number of writ petitions were preferred challenging the notifications dated 3.9.2018 and 6.9.2018 and the State of Karnataka withdrew the subsequent notification dated 6.9.2018 by passing an on order on 9.10.2018. The writ petitions which were preferred i.e., W.P.No.47171-190/2018 39 were disposed of in light of the order dated 9.10.2018 without interfering with the earlier notification dated 3.9.2018.
7. The facts further reveal that writ appeals were preferred i.e., W.A.Nos.157-176/2019 against the order passed in W.P.Nos.47171-190/2018 and the State Government took a stand before the Division Bench that it shall be withdrawing the notification dated 3.9.2018 and thereafter, a fresh notification will be issued on the subject. The writ appeals were disposed of accordingly and the State of Karnataka issued a fresh notification dated 6.2.2020 withdrawing the earlier notification dated 3.9.2018 in respect of reservation.
8. Another writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P.No.2356/2020 for implementation of earlier notification dated 3.9.2018 and the aforesaid writ petition was also disposed of directing the State Government to issue a fresh notification in respect of reservation for the posts of President and Vice President to City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths.
9. A fresh notification was issued in respect of reservation for the posts of President and Vice President on 40 11.3.2020 and again large number of writ petitions were preferred challenging the notification dated 11.3.2020. W.P.Nos.5999/2020 and 6139/2020 as well as connected matters were in respect of fresh notification dated 11.3.2020 on reservation and this Court by an order dated 17.3.2020 directed the State Government not to precipitate the matter i.e., to fill up the posts of President and Vice President pursuant to the notification dated 6.2.2020 and 11.3.2020.
10. While all this was going on, the State Government, noticing various infirmities in the guidelines as well as in the notification, formed a Cabinet Sub Committee under the Chairmanship of Law Minister along with 4 Cabinet Ministers to re-look/revisit the existing guidelines of reservation for the Posts of President and Vice President in local bodies.
11. This Court, by an order dated 18.8.2020 passed in W.P.No.6139/2020 and connected matters, directed the State Government to call for objections from the concerned affected parties, to consider the fresh objections, to finalize the guidelines and thereafter, to issue a final notification relating to guidelines in respect of reservation to the Posts of President and Vice President in various local bodies. The State 41 Government, keeping in view the order passed by the High Court, dated 18.8.2020, issued fresh guidelines dated 11.9.2020 and the guidelines were placed on record on 6.10.2020 in W.P.No.6139/2020.
12. This Court on 6.10.2020, after the guidelines were finalized, directed the State Government to issue a fresh notification in respect of reservation based upon new guidelines. Therefore, the State government withdrew its earlier notification dated 11.3.2020 and issued a fresh notification on 8.10.2020 for reservation to the post of President and Vice President in respect of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths.
13. The notification dated 8.10.2020 was challenged by R.Basavaraj as well as other persons and the writ petition filed by Basavaraj was registered as W.P.No.11566/2020. The writ petitioner raised various grounds while challenging the aforesaid notification and it was argued that the notification dated 8.10.2020 issued by the Government is wholly illegal, contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under the Act of 1964.
42
14. Another ground was raised by stating that the Posts of President and Vice President in respect of City Municipal Council, Channagiri, was never reserved for Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter referred to as ST) Category since 1995 and inspite of the aforesaid, the same has been reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman (hereinafter referred to as SCW) Category, hence, the reservation was contrary to the rotation policy.
15. The third ground raised was that Channagiri Taluk has a ST population of 5.80% of the total population and the Post of President or Vice President has never been reserved for ST Category. The persons belonging to ST were deprived of the opportunity to contest for the Post of President and Vice President. It was also stated that in respect of certain other constituencies, such as, Krishnarajapet and Talikote, even though the population of ST Category stands at 1.66% and 1.9%, in the impugned notification reservation has been given in respect of ST Category.
16. Another ground was raised by stating that the State Government has ignored the vital fact that SCW Category was given reservation in the 6th term for the Post of President and again for the 9th term, the Post of President has been reserved 43 for SCW Category. Thus, the repetition of category by the State Government for different terms without giving opportunity to other members, such as ST, is wholly illegal and the notification deserves to be set aside.
17. The petitioner further contended before the learned Single Judge that in the earlier notification dated 3.9.2018 the post of President was rightly reserved for ST Category and it should have been reserved for ST Category only in the notification dated 8.10.2020 and therefore, the change of Category by the State Government from ST to SWC is contrary to law. It was further argued that the State Government has erred in law and in facts in ignoring the statutory provisions as contained under Section 42 of the Act of 1964 and Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965. Therefore, as all the categories have not been given equal representation and opportunity, the principle of rotation has not been adopted, the impugned notification deserves to be set aside.
18. The petitioner before the learned Single Judge also took shelter to the judgments delivered in M.Abdul Azeez vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2014 KAR 1839 and Manjunath Yamanappa Elemmi vs. State of Karnataka, 44 2016 (3) Kar.LJ 71 and it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the State Government is required to grant reservation on rotation basis and there should be no repetition of categories, hence, a prayer was made for quahsment of the notification.
19. The State Government did file a detailed reply in the matter and it was stated by the State Government that a Cabinet Sub Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Law Minister along with 4 Cabinet Ministers to re-look/revisit the guidelines of reservation in respect of the Posts of President and Vice President in local bodies and it was only on account of an order passed by this Court dated 18.8.2020 in W.P.No.6139/2020, the State Government after inviting objections from all concerned and affected parties and after receiving their objections, finalized the guidelines in respect of reservation to the Offices of President and Vice President in various local bodies. The guidelines were notified on 11.9.2020 and they were placed on record before this Court on 6.10.2020 in W.P.No.6139/2020.
20. The appellant - State has further stated that as directed by this Court on 6.10.2020, a fresh notification was 45 issued in respect of reservation based upon new guidelines on 8.10.2020 and from the notification dated 8.10.2020 it is reflected that there is no repetition in respect of the Category as compared to the preceding election.
21. The State Government also took an objection that elections cannot be set aside in a writ petition and in case, there is any challenge to an elected body or elected person, it can be done only by way of Election Petition keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Jyoti Basu vs. Debi Ghoshal, (1982) 1 SCC 691. The State Government also took a plea for dismissal of the writ petition stating that there is a Constitutional bar under Article 243 ZG(b) which prohibits High Courts to entertain writ petitions in respect of election matters and by no stretch of imagination, the validity of the elections can be looked into in a writ petition.
22. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has set aside the entire notification dated 8.10.2020. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 28 to 44 reads as under;
"28. On the merits of the matter, it is too obvious that the procedure contemplated under the Rules have not been followed. Clause (2) of Rule 13-A clearly provides for the mode of rotation to the posts of 46 Presidents and Vice-Presidents. The order of allotment as contemplated is - Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste- Woman, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Tribe-Woman, Backward class category 'A', Backward class Category-A Woman, Backward class Category-B, Backward class Category-B Woman, General-Woman and such category reserved in the previous terms shall as far as possible be not allotted to the same category in the succeeding term until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category. Clause (3) of Rule 13-A provides that both the offices of the President and Vice-President shall not be allotted in favour of the same category and Woman and in case of an Office of the President being allotted to the category of Scheduled Castes, the office of the Vice-President shall not be allotted to the category of Scheduled Tribes, but shall be allotted to the next category in the cycle of rotation and vice- versa.
29. Clause (4) of Rule 13-A mandates rotation to the Municipal Council having the next higher percentage of population in which the offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms. In terms of Clause (5), the State Government is required to prepare and maintain separate registers of Offices of President and Vice-President allotted to different categories in Form-A. Similarly, allotment of different Municipal Councils for each category is required to be maintained in separate Form-B. Obviously these requirements are put in place to ensure allotment in the succeeding term by excluding reservations already made in the previous terms.
30. Keeping in mind the said requirements, when we analyse the allegations made by the petitioners, it is evident that deviations in the impugned notifications are clearly visible. The mandatory requirement as found in Clause (4) of Rule 13A in rotating the reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories to the next higher percentage of population in which the Offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms, has not been followed in the case of Harihara and Koppal CMCs which have more population of Scheduled Tribes, when compared to Arasikere and Hassan CMCs. Similarly in the case of Channagiri TMC, the post of President is reserved to Scheduled Caste (Woman), ignoring Gundlupet TMC which has more population of Scheduled Castes. On the other hand, Channagiri TMC which has 5.81% of Scheduled Tribe 47 population is denied the said reservation and reservation is given to Krishnarajapete TMC which has 1.49% of Scheduled Tribe population.
31. Moreover, the petitioners have alleged that such deviation have been consciously made to ensure unopposed election of Councillors to the post of President, belonging to the ruling party in the State. Such serious allegations cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence.
32. The other set of allegations that reservations have been repeated ignoring the rule of completion of a cycle, could not be controverted at the hands of the respondent-State Government. Clause (2) of Rule 13A provides for the mode of rotation and clearly mandates that the category of reservation in the previous terms shall not be allotted to the same category until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category. This would mean that unless and until a particular type of reservation, say for example, Scheduled Caste Woman is allotted in the descending order to the last of the Municipal Council in the list prepared in the descending order at Appendix-III, the same shall not be repeated to any of the Municipal Councils which have already had the reservation in the previous terms. There are 59 CMCs in the State and 5 posts of President are reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman. The th impugned notifications is issued for the 9 term, which means, till the 8th term, going by the descending order, 40 posts of President should have got the reservation of Scheduled Caste Woman. Since the cycle is not complete until all the 59 CMCs get the reservation of Scheduled Caste Woman, there cannot be repetition to any of the CMCs which earlier had the benefit of reservation. In Table No.1, as found in the notification dated 28.09.2020, the highest number of reservations are in the category of Backward Class-A and Backward Class-A Women viz., 6 each. Even in those categories the cycle remains incomplete. Therefore, on the face of it, reservation in any category could not have been repeated. However, if there was any genuine reason for repetition, the same should have been put in writing, as required under the guidelines, which could justify such deviation.
33. When it comes to the question of General category, things stand on a different footing. As rightly 48 pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Lal Rada Vs. Anil Jain (Tinu) and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 1, has held that there cannot be any such reservation of seats in Municipalities nor to the office of Chairpersons in favour of candidates belonging to general category. There is no separate category like general category. It was held that the expression "belonging to the General Category" wherever employed means the seats or offices earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. The unreserved seats were euphemistically described as general category seats/open seats available for all candidates who are otherwise qualified to contest to that office. Therefore, the averments made by some of the petitioners that there is repetition of general category and therefore, such reservations should be set aside, cannot be countenanced.
34. This Court would hasten to add that when it comes to the category "General Women", the rule of rotation and non-repetition before completion of the cycle would still apply. In the mode of allotment as enunciated in the rules and guidelines, the last category to be allotted is "General" category. Obviously the General category would have to be filled in the remaining seats, after allotment of reserved seats. But a word of caution is necessary here. If the mode of reservation and rotation is followed as per the prescription, then filling up the remaining posts with General category seats is justifiable. But if the General category seats are allotted even before allotment of the reserved seats, then allegation of mala fides would still be considerable. In order to steer clear of such allegations, the State and its authorities are required to maintain the worksheet and reasons in writing.
35. This Court would also accept the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General that a right to elect is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. In Jyoti Basu and others Vs. Debi Ghosal and others (1982) 1 SCC 691, it was held that right to elect, though fundamental to democracy, it is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. The same would apply even to the right of being elected. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to 49 statutory limitation. In that view of the matter, no one can claim that a particular reservation has to be made to a particular post. It is for the State authority to workout the modalities in terms of the rules and guidelines.
36. On going through these provisions and the guidelines, including the new guidelines dated 11.09.2020, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no room for confusion of the manner in which the reservation is required to be rotated. In every fresh term, the exercise is required to be started from the category of Scheduled Tribes, from top of the list. If for some reason, assignment of a particular reservation has been skipped, in the next term due regard is required to be had to provide the reservation which was legitimately to be given on the previous term. Therefore, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no reference point from where to start, since deviations have been made in the previous terms, cannot be countenanced.
37. The Legislature in its wisdom, could foresee some difficulties that could crop up while preparing the draft of rotation. It is for this reason that a permissible flexibility in the form of play in the joints are provided, but it requires specific reasons to be recorded in writing. This Court has gone through the original records submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. Unfortunately, no proceedings as contemplated in Clause (xi)(e) of the guidelines/Government Order dated 11.09.2020 seems to have been recorded with respect to any of the deviations. The learned Additional Advocate General is unable to offer resistance to the factual submissions made at the hands of the petitioners.
38. The vociferous contentions of the petitioners pointing out to the manner in which allotment of reservation is made, jumping the queue and the benefit of such allotment flowing to a candidate belonging to the ruling party, getting a walkover since there could not be any contest, there having been no other candidate in such category, are serious allegations which cannot be brushed aside lightly by saying that it is a 'mere coincidence', as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General.
50
39. The same principle would apply to cases where it is alleged that there has been repetition, without completing the cycle and in cases where both the posts of President and Vice-President have been reserved in favour of Women. If the authorities had encountered certain difficulties and could not avoid repetition or allotment of both the seats to Women, then in terms of the guidelines, due reasons had to be recorded in writing. When allegations of mala fides, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power are made against the State and its authorities, this Court is required to examine the same and if required call upon the State and its authorities to substantiate their action. As noticed earlier, this Court did call upon the respondent-State to place on record the reasons for the obvious deviations and nothing is forthcoming from the respondent-State Government, except stating that they have followed the principle 'no repetition of reservation made in the previous term' as provided in one of Clauses of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020.
40. It is by now well settled that an executive order/Government Order cannot overrule a statutory provision and rules having statutory force governing the field. Clarification to enable the implementation of the provisions may be made by issuance of Government or Executive Orders. Even otherwise, in the Government Order dated 11.09.2020, the Government has enumerated the general principles to be followed for the purpose of fixing the reservation and the first of the Clause is that the reservation of the Offices of President and Vice-President for different categories will be done as per the amended Rules. The requirement of rotating the reservations to the Municipal Council having the next highest percentage of that category has not been done away with, in the Government Order.
41. In the light of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the three impugned notifications, all dated 08.10.2020 are required to be set aside. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the Municipal Councils have been without heads from August 2018. The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that a miniscule percentage of Councillors are before this Court, while the majority are happy with the reservations, may sound convincing, but that cannot justify or stop this Court from quashing the notifications. While this Court is convinced that the 51 impugned notifications are a blatant violation of the rules of reservation and rotation, extenuated by oblique motive and malice, writ requires to be issued. There are about 24 writ petitions before this Court, 19 before the Dharwad Bench and 14 before the Kalaburagi Bench. Except a few, the impending majority of writ petitions pertain to the post of President in various Municipal Councils. Any change in the allotment of reservation to the posts of Presidents will have a natural impact on the reservation to the posts of Vice- Presidents.
42. This Court has also pondered over the chances of setting right the anomaly by restricting the intervention to a minimum number of posts. But what is obvious and unavoidable is the cascading effect that the exercise of reallotment would throw up. Moreover, when this Court has held that the process of rotation, in accordance with the rules and guidelines are required to commence to the post of President, from the category Scheduled Tribe in accordance with the descending order, as per the Table Appendix-III of Scheduled Tribes, thereafter followed by Scheduled Castes and thereafter Backward classes, this Court would be guilty of permitting violation, if adjustments are permitted to be made and restrict the changes to the minimum. If such exercise of adjustment is permitted to be made, challenges of violation of the rules are bound to follow.
43. Before parting with these writ petitions, this Court deems it necessary to sound a word of caution. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Division Bench, while dealing with the appeals arising out of the interim order passed by this Court, has expressed its anguish at the manner in which notifications are issued giving scope for challenge and the Municipal Councils being without the respective Heads from August 2018. It was therefore suggested that reservations to the posts of President and Vice- President to the next term should be made immediately after the notifications are issued for the present term. However, the exact words used by Hon'ble Division Bench could not be captured by this Court, since a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the Writ Appeal is not available as on date. Even earlier, this Court has expressed its anguish and directed the State Government to issue the notifications atleast six months prior to the date of elections to the 52 post of President and Vice-President. This Court would go a step further and call upon the State Government/Legislature to contemplate handing over the responsibility of notifying the reservations to an independent agency like the Election Commission. By doing so, the State Government can atleast stay clear of allegations of mala fides.
44. As a result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) All the three impugned notifications dated 08.10.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) A writ of mandamus ensues to the respondent- State to notify reservation to the post of President and Vice-President in all the Municipal Councils including Town Municipalities within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) A writ of mandamus ensues to the respondent-State to follow the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time and the guidelines in Government Order dated 11.09.2020, while undertaking the exercise of rotation of reservation to the posts of President and Vice-President.
(v) The respondent-State shall maintain the worksheets and notes prepared while undertaking the exercise of rotation. Proceedings shall be drawn up in terms of the guidelines in Government Order dated 11.09.2020 as per Clause (xi)(e) to indicate the reasons for any deviation.
(vi) After notifying the new lists, if the State Government finds that there is no change in the reservation made to the posts of President and Vice- President in more than 50% of the cases as found in the impugned notifications, liberty is reserved to the State Government to file a writ petition to avoid holding of fresh elections in all such cases and to seek a declaration that elections in all such Municipal Councils are deemed to be held, results declared and may continue to function in accordance with law. 53
In order to enable such declaration, the elections held consequent to the impugned notifications and declaration of results shall stand in suspended animation till calendar of events are announced following the fresh notifications or till a declaration is made by this Court, whichever is earlier.
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, all pending Interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
It is ordered accordingly."
23. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties including the learned counsel appearing for the interveners.
24. The facts of the case reveal that writ petitioner in W.P.No.11566/2020 who is an elected member of Town Municipal Council, Channagiri, came up before this Court being aggrieved by the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of powers as contained under Section 42 of the Act of 1964 and Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules 1965.
25. The last notification which was subject matter of dispute dated 8.10.2020 reserving the Posts of President and Vice President in various local bodies i.e., City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths is reproduced as under;
54
"Government of Karnataka NOTIFICATION NO.UDD 107 MLR 2020(2), BENGALURU, DATED 08.10.2020 As per the approval of the Cabinet the revised Guidelines for the purpose of fixing reservation for the offices of President and Vice-President of City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Council and Town Panchayath were issued vide Government Order No.UDD 65 MLR 2020, dated 11.09.2020.
In terms of Government Order No.UDD 65 MLR 2020, dated 11.09.2020, Government withdrew the Notification dated 11.03.2020 regarding reservation to the posts of President and Vice-President of City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Council and Town Panchayath vide Notification No.UDD 65 MLR 2020, dated 08.10.2020.
As per the revised Guidelines dated 11.09.2020, Government hereby allots reservation to the offices of President and Vice-President to various categories for the Ninth (9th) TERM in respect of the following TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCILS under Rule 13 and 13A of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules and Guidelines issued vide Government Order No.UDD 65 MLR 2020, dated 11.09.2020.
Sl. Name of Town Municipal President Vice No Council President 1 2 3 4 1 Afzalpur GW SCW 2 Aland GW G 3 Anekal G GW 4 Ankola G BCAW 5 Annigeri GW BCBW 6 Athani G BCB 7 Attibele BCA SCW 8 Badami G GW 9 Bagepalli BCAW G 10 Bailhongal G GW 11 Bangarpet GW SCW 12 Bankapur GW SC 13 Bannur STW GW 14 Bantwal G BCBW 55 15 Basavanabagewadi SCW GW 16 Belur SC GW 17 Bhalki G G 18 Bhatkal G G 19 Bidadi BCAW G 20 Birur BCA GW 21 Bommasandra BCA SC 22 Byadagi GW BCAW 23 Chandapur G SC 24 Channagiri SCW GW 25 Channarayapatna BCB SC 26 Chikkanayakanahalli SC BCAW 27 Chikkodi SC G 28 Chincholi BCBW G 29 Chittaguppa SCW GW 30 Chittapur SC BCA 31 Devadurga G STW 32 Devanahalli BCAW GW 33 Gajendragad G BCAW 34 Guledagudda BCAW GW 35 Gundlupet G GW 36 Gurumitkal BCA SCW 37 Hagaribommanahalli GW ST 38 Haliyal BCA GW 39 H.D.Kote STW G 40 Hallikbeda G BCAW 41 Hanagal G BCA 42 Harapanahalli BCA STW 43 Harogeri G SCW 44 Holenarasipura GW BCBW 45 Hoovinahadagali G BCA 46 Hosadurga BCB G 47 Hukkeri G BCB 48 Humnabad SCW GW 49 Hungund G G 50 Indi BCAW G 51 Jewargi GW G 52 Jigani GW G 53 K.R.Nagar G SCW 54 Kadur G GW 55 Kakkera BCAW ST 56 Kampli GW BCA 57 Kapu BCA SCW 58 Karatagi G STW 59 Karkala GW BCAW 60 Kembavi SCW BCA 56 61 Konnur BCAW G 62 Konappanagrahara GW ST 63 Krishnarajapete ST BCAW 64 Kudachi SC G 65 Kumta GW G 66 Kundapur GW BCA 67 Kunigal G GW 68 Kurekuppa BCAW STW 69 Kurugodu STW GW 70 Kushtagi G GW 71 Lakshmeshwar GW SC 72 Lingasugur SCW BCA 73 Maddur SC GW 74 Madanayakanahalli GW SCW 75 Madhugiri ST GW 76 Magadi GW BCA 77 Mahalingapur G BCAW 78 Malavalli GW G 79 Malebennuru GW SCW 80 Malur SC BCAW 81 Manvi BCAW SC 82 Maski ST GW 83 Moodbidri G BCAW 84 Mudalagi BCA SCW 85 Muddebihal GW BCAW 86 Mudgal BCAW G 87 Mugalkhod BCAW SC 88 Munavalli BCA SC 89 Mundargi BCBW BCA 90 Naragund GW G 91 Navalgund G GW 92 Nagamangala GW BCA 93 Pandavapura SCW GW 94 Pavagada SC GW 95 Periyapatna BCA GW 96 Ramdurg BCA SC 97 Ron SCW G 98 Sadalga G BCA 99 Sakleshpura SC GW 100 Sandur STW G 101 Sankeshwar GW G 102 Saundatti BCB BCA 103 Savanur BCBW G 104 Sedam GW G 105 Shiggaon G SC 106 Shikaripura BCAW G 57 107 Sindagi G G 108 Someswara SCW BCAW 109 Srinivasapura SCW GW 110 Srirangapatna GW G 111 T.Narasipura G GW 112 Talikote ST G 113 Tarikere SC GW 114 Terdal GW BCB 115 Ugar Khurd BCA ST 116 Vijayapura GW G 117 Wadi GW G By Order and in the Name of Government of Karnataka Sd/- (A.VIJAYAKUMAR) Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department.
26. The statutory provisions which are necessary for adjudication of the present appeals as contained under Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, are reproduced as under;
"42. President and vice-president.--(1) For every municipal council, there shall be a President and a Vice- President.
[(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A) the Councillors shall at the first meeting of the Municipal Council after the general election and at a subsequent meeting held immediately before the expiry of term of office of the President and Vice-President chose two members from amongst the elected councillors to be respectively President and Vice-President and so often as there is a casual vacancy in the office of the President, or Vice-President shall choose another member from amongst the elected councillors to be the President or Vice-President, as the case may be.] [(2A) There shall be reserved by the Government in the prescribed manner,--58
(a) such number of offices of President and Vice-President in the State for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State;
(b) such number of offices of President and Vice-President in the State which shall as nearly as may be one-third of the total number of offices of President and Vice-President in the State for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes;
[Provided that out of the offices reserved under this clause eighty per cent of the total number of such offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category "A" and the remaining twenty per cent of the offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category "B":
Provided further that if no person falling under category "A" is available, offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category "B" and vice versa.] [Provided also that the number of offices of President and Vice-President reserved for the Backward Classes under this clause shall be so determined that the total number of offices of President and Vice-President reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes under this clause shall not exceed fifty per cent of the total number of offices of President and Vice -President of the Municipal Councils in the State.]
(c) [not more than fifty per cent of the total number of offices of the President and Vice-president] in the State from each of the categories, reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and those which are non-reserved, for women:
Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation in the prescribed manner to different municipal councils.59
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principal 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;]
27. The election to the Posts of President and Vice President is held under the statutory provisions as contained under the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice President) Election Rules, 1965. The statutory provisions as contained under Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965 are reproduced as under;
"13. Reservation of Offices of President and Vice-
President.-
(1) Reservation of offices of President and Vice- President of the City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats for different categories in accordance with sub-section (2-A) of Section 42 read with Section 353 shall be as specified in the table below.-
Table -1 Reservation of offices in City Municipal Councils Sl.No. Category President Vice-
President 1 SC 5 5 2 SC-Women 5 5 3 ST 2 2 4 ST-Women 2 2 5 Backward Class-A 6 6 6 Backward Class-A(Women) 6 6 7 Backward Class-B 2 2 8 Backward Class-B(Women) 1 1 9 General 15 15 10 General-Women 14 14 Total 58 58 60 Table -2 Reservation of offices in Town Municipal Councils Sl.No. Category President Vice-
President 1 SC 10 10 2 SC-Women 10 10 3 ST 4 4 4 ST-Women 4 4 5 Backward Class-A 12 12 6 Backward Class-A(Women) 12 12 7 Backward Class-B 3 3 8 Backward Class-B(Women) 3 3 9 General 29 29 10 General-Women 29 29 Total 116 116 Table -3 Reservation of offices in Town Panchayats Sl.No. Category President Vice-
President 1 SC 8 8 2 SC-Women 8 8 3 ST 3 3 4 ST-Women 3 3 5 Backward Class-A 10 10 6 Backward Class-A(Women) 9 9 7 Backward Class-B 3 3 8 Backward Class-B(Women) 2 2 9 General 23 23 10 General-Women 23 23 Total 92 92 (2) The Offices of President reserved for Scheduled Tribes shall be allotted by the Government to the Municipal Councils, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats having the highest percentage of population belonging to Scheduled Tribes with reference to the total population of the municipal area. The same procedure shall be followed by the Government for allotting to the Municipal Councils, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats the same number of offices of Vice-President for members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes but excluding the Municipal Councils, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats in which the office of President have been already allotted to them.
61(3) The offices of President and Vice-President of Municipal Councils or as the case may be, Town Panchayats in the State shall be allotted by the Government for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes in the same manner as specified in sub-rule(1):
Provided that both the offices of President and Vice-President in any Municipal Council, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats shall not be allotted in favour of the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only:
Provided further that if the reservation worked out to any category is less than 0.5% no offices of President and Vice-President be reserved to such category.
(4) The offices of President and Vice-President of the Municipal Councils, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats, reserved for Backward Classes and those of unreserved category, shall be allotted by the Government taking into consideration such factors as the Government may deem fit.
(5) The offices of President and Vice-President reserved for women in each category referred in sub-rule (1) shall be allotted by the Government to the Municipal Councils, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats taking into consideration such factors as the Government may deem fit:
Provided that both the offices of President and Vice- President of the Municipal Council, or as the case may be, Town Panchayats shall not be reserved for women.
(6) Omitted w.e.f., 22.11.2001."
"Rule 13-A. Rotation of offices.- (1) Subject to sub- rule (1) of Rule 13, the offices of President and Vice- President of the City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats in the State shall be rotated to the different categories from term to term.
Explanation. - For the purpose of reservation of offices by rotation the cycle of rotation shall commence from first term after first ordinary election held after First day of June, 1994 and completed when all the categories are represented in all City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal 62 Councils and Town Panchayats as the case may be. Thereafter, a fresh cycle of rotation shall commence.
(2) The office of the President and Vice-President of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste-Woman, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Tribe-Woman, Backward Class-Category A, Backward Class-Category A-Woman, Backward Class-Category B, Backward Class-Category B-Woman, General-Woman in the previous terms shall as far as possible be not allotted to the same category in the succeeding term until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category.
(3) Both the office of the President and Vice-President of the City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils or Town Panchayats, as the case may be, shall not be allotted in favour of the same category of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class and Woman, and in case of an Office of the President is allotted to the category of the Scheduled Castes, the Office of the Vice-
President shall not be allotted to the category of the Scheduled Tribes but shall be allotted to the next category in the cycle of rotation and vice versa. (4) The offices reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be allotted by rotation to the City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils or Town Panchayats, having the next higher percentage of population in which the offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms. (5) The Government shall prepare and maintain separate registers of offices of President and Vice- President of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils or Town Panchayats allotted to different categories in Form A. (6) The Government shall prepare and maintain separate registers of offices of President and Vice- President allotted by reservation for each category in different City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils or Town Panchayats in Form B."
28. The notification which was under challenge in the writ petition was issued as stated earlier keeping in view the 63 aforesaid statutory provisions and the notification was issued on 8.10.2020. The most important aspect of the case is that pursuant to the notification dated 8.10.2020, the elections have been held in the entire State of Karnataka in respect of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths.
29. The local bodies as defined under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, are of three categories (a) City Municipal Councils, (b) Town Municipal Councils and (c) Town Panchayaths. The most important of the case is that election for the posts of President and Vice President in respect of 47 City Municipal Councils, which took place pursuant to notification dated 8.10.2020 were not the subject matter of any of the writ petitions. Similarly in respect of as many as 96 Town Municipal Councils there was no challenge in any writ petition in respect of elections to the Posts of President and Vice President held pursuant to notification dated 8.10.2020. In respect of Town Panchayaths, the elections held in as many as 85 Town Panchayaths for the posts of President and Vice President were not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions. Inspite of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has quashed the reservation notification dated 8.10.2020, 64 which has resulted in setting aside of election to the Posts of President and Vice President of all local bodies in the State of Karnataka without granting any opportunity of hearing of any kind to the elected Presidents and Vice-Presidents in such elections.
30. The operative paragraph of the order passed by the learned Single Judge makes it very clear that he has set aside the elections held pursuant to the notification dated 8.10.2020 by quashing the notification itself in the entire State. Learned counsel appearing for the interveners are in fact those persons who were not before the Court, who were not impleaded as respondents and their election have been set aside by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on this count alone deserves to be set aside.
31. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions has directed the State Government by issuing a writ of mandamus to follow the provisions of the Rules of 1965 as amended from time to time and the guidelines in the Government order dated 11.9.2020. The question of issuing a mandamus to follow a statutory provision does not arise as the 65 State is certainly under an obligation to follow the statutory provisions governing the field. The learned Single Judge, after quashing the notification dated 8.10.2020, has also directed the State Government to issue a fresh notification in respect of reservation to the Posts of President and Vice President and in case, after issuing the fresh notification there is no change in respect of reservation, the State Government has been granted a liberty to file a writ petition to seek a declaration that election in all such Municipal Councils are deemed to be valid, results declared and the Presidents and Vice Presidents may continue to function in accordance with law.
32. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued to the State Government to file a writ petition before this Court seeking for declaration to declare the election of a particular Municipal Council for the post of President and Vice President as proper and legal. Therefore, on this ground also the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
33. In the present case, the allegation is in respect of a violation of rotation policy keeping in view Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965 and it has been stated that earlier in 6th 66 term, the post of President was reserved for SCW Category and again for the 9th term, it has been reserved for SCW Category. However, the fact remains that for 7th and 8th terms the post was reserved for any other Category and not for SCW Category and there is no repetition as compared to the preceding year. Otherwise also, it can be a ground for Election Petition while challenging the election to the Post of President. Election cannot be set aside in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been done in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
34. The Rules of 1965 provides for Election Petition and Rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules 1965 read as under;
"15 Election Petition.- (1) The validity of the election of the President or the vice-President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area within which the election has been or should have been held, within seven days from the date of declaration of the election by any candidate at such election or by three or more Councillors joined together as petitioners.
(2) Every petition under sub-rule(1) shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.
(3) The petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting 67 candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, the returned candidate, (4) A petition under sub-rule(1),-
(a) shall contain a concise statement of material on which the petitioner relies;
(b) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings;
(c) any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
5. The petitioner may claim any of the following declarations.,-
(a) that the election of the returned candidate is void;
(b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly election.
16. Procedure of the District Judge.- The District Judge, may after such enquiry as he deems fit and after giving an opportunity to be heard to the parties to the proceedings, make an order,-
(a) dismissing the petition; or
(b) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void; or
(c) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected.
17. Grounds for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void.- (1) If the District Judge is of opinion,-
(a) that the result of the election has been materially affected,-
68
(i) by the improper reception or refusal of a vote; or
(ii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any of these rules; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been wrongly rejected or that the nomination of the successful candidate or of any other candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature has been wrongly accepted; the District Judge shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."
35. The aforesaid statutory provisions provide that the validity of election to the posts of President or the Vice President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge and Rule 17 specifically provides that the District Judge in case he is of the opinion that the result of the election has been materially affected by non compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1964 or any of the Rules framed thereunder, he can certainly declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
36. In the present case, there is an allegation of non compliance of Section 42 of the Act and Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965 and therefore, non compliance of the statutory provisions can be a valid ground for challenging the election of the returned candidate by filing an Election Petition only. In 69 light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
37. Another important aspect of the case is that inspite of there being a Constitutional bar under Article 243ZG(b) which prohibits High Courts to entertain writ petitions, writ petitions have been entertained declaring the notification related to reservation dated 8.10.2020 as void, as a consequence of which the election held for 59 City Municipal Councils, 117 Town Municipal Councils and 100 Town Panchayaths to the posts of President and Vice President, have been set aside.
38. Article 243ZB(b) of the Constitution of India which is relevant for the issue in controversy reads as under;
"243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,--
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.] "70
39. In the considered opinion of this Court, as in all cases the process of election was over, results were declared/results were not declared on account of the Court's order, there should not have been any interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
40. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Mr.Ravindra Nayak vs. Karnataka State Election Commission and Others, reported in ILR 2019 KAR 1409 and Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 61, has held that the judicial review is a part of basic structure and there is no absolute bar in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of election under the Act of 1964.
41. The scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in election matters has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. In the case of Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216, it has been held by the Hon'ble 71 Supreme that the High Courts should not interfere during the progress in election process.
42. In the case of West Bengal State Election Commission vs. Communist Party of India (Marxist), reported in (2018) 18 SCC 141, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 29 has held as under;
"27 There is merit in the submission that the discipline which is mandated by the provisions of the Constitution and enforced by the enabling state law on the subject must be maintained. Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused by adopting a remedy which is known to law namely through an election petition. It is at the trial of an election petition that factual disputes can be resolved on the basis of evidence. This principle has been consistently adhered to in decisions of this Court. In Boddula Krishnaiah vs. State Election Commission, reported in AP (1996) 3 SCC 416, a three Judge bench, adverted to the decisions of the Constitution Bench in NP Ponnuswami v Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64 and in Lakshmi Charan Sen v AKM Hassan Uzzaman, (1985) 4 SCC 689. After referring to Ponnuswamy, it was observed (Boddala Krishnaiah case (supra) para 8):
"8. In NP Ponnuswamy v Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the 'election'; and if any irregularities are committed, while it is in progress 72 and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the 'election; and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress."
The binding principle must be followed."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that any irregularities and illegalities committed while the election is in process, the remedy available is to file an Election Petition before the competent Tribunal.
43. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Manjula vs. State of A.P, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 766. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under;
"8. Apart from the delay in approaching the High Court it is settled law that election dispute could not have been raised in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court in Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P. [(1996) 3 SCC 416] held that in case of an election dispute, remedy is available at law for its redressal. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in law in giving directions not to declare the result of election or to conduct fresh poll. The Court relied (at SCC pp. 420-21, para 10) upon the following observations of this Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 Supp (2) SCC 305] :
"10. ... 'What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution enacts a bar on the 73 interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission [AIR 1967 SC 669] . In that case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said constituency which had been taken away. This Court held that the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good reason for such a provision because if the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Although an order under Section 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and published under Section 10(1) of that Act is not part of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10(4) of that Act puts such an order in the same position as a law made by Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article 327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and Sections 2(kk), 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, it will be obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the notification for holding the elections was 74 issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge was made after the notification for the election was issued on 31- 8-1994.' "
It then concluded: (SCC p. 421, para 11) "11. Thus, it would be clear that once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process giving direction to the election officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process afresh, in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented from exercising their franchise. As seen, the dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy is thus available at law for redressal."
44. In light of the aforesaid judgment, even though there was a challenge in respect of the reservation to the elections, elections were held on the basis of aforesaid notification and the only remedy available was to file an Election Petition and the statutory remedy could not have been by passed by the petitioner, as has been done in the present case.
45. In the case of C.Subrahmanyam vs. K.Ramanjaneyulu, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 703, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 has held as under;
"1. Leave granted.75
2. The impugned order was made by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed to challenge an order directing repoll made during the process of election. The first question was whether the writ petition should have been entertained in view of the remedy of election petition under the Act. The High Court took the view that the main point for decision was whether the order directing repoll is in violation of Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having taken this view, the High Court proceeded to say that a reference was made to a provision of the Constitution in that order and, therefore, the writ petition would lie and the impugned order was quashed for violation of Section 231 of the Act.
3. In our opinion, the main question for decision being the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained for this purpose. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. No costs.
4. It is clarified that this order will not in any manner affect the remedy available to the aggrieved party under the Act and that should be decided without being influenced in any manner by the observations made in the High Court's order on merits, which is set aside."
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that in case there is a non-compliance/violation of a provision of the Act, it is a ground for Election Petition. In the present case also, if there is a violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 13 and 13 of the Rules of 2011, certainly it is a ground to file an Election Petition. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid judgments, writ petition was 76 certainly a bar and the only remedy available was to file an Election Petition after conclusion of the election.
47. In the considered opinion of this Court, as provided under the Rules of 1965 relating to Election Petition, violation of statutory provisions of the Act or violation of the provisions under the Rules can be a ground for filing an Election Petition and therefore, in the matter of reservation of Offices of President and Vice President, there is certainly a remedy to challenge the same on the ground that the notification dated 8.10.2020 was issued contrary to the statutory provisions as contained under Rule 13 and 13A of the Rules of 1965. In the considered opinion of this Court, in light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
48. As this Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, this Court has not dealt with the issue of reservation in respect of individual cases in other connected writ petitions and all the petitioners/persons aggrieved shall certainly be free to file Election Petitions challenging the election held for the Posts of President and Vice President in respect of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayaths. It is needless to mention that this Court 77 has not observed anything on merits to the extent the notification dated 8.10.2020 is concerned as it relates to entire State of Karnataka and in case, election petition/s is/are filed, the validity of the notification and the election shall be looked into by the District Judge/Election Tribunal in accordance with law without being influenced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge or without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.
49. Resultantly, this Court of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
50. Net result is, all the writ appeals are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside with the aforesaid liberty.
No order as to costs.
Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE nd