Karnataka High Court
P P Chaami vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2558 (KAR.) = 2008 (4) AIR KAR R 354, 2008 (4) AIR KAR R 354
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH COURT/OF KARNATAKA, 2 u
DATED nus TH-E'2H"' DAY or MARCH, A 1: xé
BEFORE A' é
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Asaaxa; §%PP%iPjf PP§ _
BETWEEN
1
AND
P P Cl-IAAMI
3/0 P c PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 was
Mrrcflmuuasawaeu A
THALATHAMANEP e % PP
MADIl(ERI*2G1._ ' P
% L k & PE'l'l'l'IONER
[By Hegde Associates]
STATE dPP:éARuAm&§
Rt-.P. av ns PRINCIML SECRETARY
m.=Pr.%a:=%uRBAw s.w!s\.:ieLoPMEuT
P ,vmHAieA's.ouDnA
= Pmfi STATE E}LE<:noN coumsszou
No.8 QJNEENGHAM now
BANGALORE 32
« «Danni! conmssronea
" _ KODAGU 0151
'F-1r'\DIl(ERl
COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICWAL COUNCIL
MADIKERI
G M SATISH PAI
.10 I ' .
. ELECTED MUNICIPAI-. COUNCILOR,
5/ 0 GMANJUNATHA PAI
AGED 47 ms, R/O GOKUL KOHINDORROAD, ' L R V %
MADIKERI.
B Y RAJESH S/0 B M YELIAPPA ._
AGED 34 YRS, NEAR GANDHI IAPA,
RNA SEAT ROAD,
MADIKERI.
C G CHANGAPPA csuxesu)
s/o GANAPATHY C.P.
AGED as ms, A A
R/O No.14/195 A
new EXTENSION, nADEacEm. A
SR1-PRAKASH.TVS..S/GT A 'D R'
AGED Aaour 35:.ms,'LL¢
COUMClLDR;CIT¥..M_UN!§1PAL
MADIKERL {' w L A
SR1 5'4 KSUNIL N.#{N3APPA'.
ELECTED HUN§C1PALbC0_UN£ELOR,
WARU. 'N0. 1, WHITE V H0_.UE,_E,_.
NEAR mc CDLLEGE, A
MADIKERL A
smrvu MAYLAMMA..._. A
A fiL~;AED flO.2';*v5UBRAMAN¥A ~ A
V.13
" ..§'flADI_i\'!T'Ri'a'
*SMT I !;17'S3:§iIi;IAKUMARIL .
Ei;EC?ED MUNICIPAL COUNCILDR,
WAED' No.3, DAR QUARTERS,
A. moment.
CELT B -R PRATHIBHA
ELECTED MUNICIPAL couucnon,
WARD No.4, HOUSE no.9/as
0PP:OOLLEGE GIRLS HOSTEL
MADIKERI.
SRI K T BABY MATHEW
14
16
17
V1"a{_
EDED- °2o
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR, ,
WARD N0.7, NO.8,
NEAR ST.JOSEPH'S CONVENT
MADIKERI.
SRI P D PONNAPPA
ELECTED MUNICIPAL 'COUNCIL-.OR, " 'EV
WARD No.8, MANGALORE ROAD,
MADIKERI. A D
SR1 B K mun Emma
ELECTED MUNICIPAL scouncmniz, g =
WARD no.9, "ARUNOI3AY_A" ; .
HOUSE uo.212(11)(a) * E D
KOHINOOR ROAD,
MADIKERI.
sm su5Rm.mI§i1)MEs§: 1
ELECTED Munmm cwIresciLr;.m;'DD D
WARD NO.10,"Hfl1JSE .l§io,_:3;2.§_(g)V ;
Gowu
MAmr.;<ER1_. D
SMT M DHARHAVATl_1I~.._ E
ELECTED :aUmcIPAL.ceuwc1LoR.
wane: 110.11». R/o*'1'reAn1m" D D
JMANAGAR Exrzuszcm
.. _ AvfiADIKERI'...AA'
.SmD+§EDfiEEPr:A:§eeP
. ELEcTEr;«Mumc1PAL counemok.
'WARD Em.D12, HOUSE No.20/47/1
NEARASWIKTHKATTE
MADIKERI.
A sax K G HAREESH
A ELECTED MUNICIPAL couNc1LoR,
wmzn No.13, NO.131/1, c amen, No.13
M.G.ROAD, MADIKERI.
SR1 K U ASHRAFF
ELECTED -MUNICIPN. CLOR.
WARD N0.14, G.T. ROAD,
21
22
23
24
25
MADIKERI.
SRI H M NANDAKUMAR
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
WARD NO.15, ASHOKPURA
MADIKERI. %
5:21 PT uNNn<n1sHNAN
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR,
warm No. 15, A L
JAYANAGAR,-MADIKERI.
SR1 H B VIJAYA
ELECTED MUNICIPAL »
WARD N0.17,
BEHIND SUDARSHAN
MADIKERI. %
SR1 AC DE'Ji5sIAH_.((Zl'R.lf-QMI), E
ELECTED1MU!s1I(31PAi. coumzma
waneN0-L19;Ne..1N1L2m. L
ARADHANA,;5. 3 ' E
MAN9s COMPGiJ!'&_D'ROo!5|_);__ E E
MADIKERI. 1 ~ \\
sax K s RAMESH ',
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR,
Wa\_RD ?elO.19, ;
flQ.23';'48f1
E j-xANNANnNE.NNE
" wmrscem.'
26 E
'SMT P LG R}l'35;l:;RAFF UNHISA
ELECTED' MUNICIPAL COUNCIL-OR
WARD';NO.20, NO.40--15, MAHADEVPET,
.. VNAoI:<Em.
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR.
WARD N0.21,
KUMBALAGERI UKKADA,
28
CHITRA DEVARAI
GADDIGE ROAD, MADIKERI.
SMT P R MANJULA -
29
30
32
é MADIKERI,
E33 «SR1
ELECTED MUNICIPN. COUNGILOR:
WARD No.22, W/0 M.l(.NAVEEN,
KANNANDABAIIE,
MADIKERI.
SR1 B M RAJESHE
ELECTED Mun1c1PALEcouncn.oR.D A 5 W
WARD NO.23, S/O B.S.MOHAN
N.2/42, , _ " _
MADIKERI. '
sax MUNEERAHME-D
ELECTED MUNICIPAL " .
WARD No.24. k
MADIKERI. V
sm I01ATEE3AV..
ELECTED
wmo uc+.25%,"-A E
wro N0OR.MD§i.§MMED,V"_'v- «
THYAGNi%l£i,C0L§}'flY,'*..A
MABIKERI.
sm Vfi«$ANTHA. A '
ELECTED !!fl3?0IG'I'PAL:_ .,?l(1lLOR.- D
wnap No.25, w/0 D.D.KESHAVA,
Mm-lA|3~§VPET," .
E' ._ MUNYCIPAL COIJNCILOR,
35
*\N'ARD N037,
5:0 K;P.UflMAR,E
A
_ VEMADEKERI.
. " SM?!" RAN!
ELECTED MUNICIPAL COUNGILOR;
WARD N028,
W/0 P.T.MACHAIN'l, HILLE-ROAD,
MADIKERI.
SMT H R DHANALAKSHMI
ELECTED MUNICIPAL CGJNCILOR,
WARD N0.29, W/0 |'|.D.GANESH,
MALLIKARIUNA-NAGAR,MADIKERI._
36 SMTBSLATHA
ELECTED MUNICIPAL couucILoR,wAnnIN,o.3o; 5
w/osuuueaamcem II '
MALLIKARJUNA NAGART,
MADIKERI.
37 SR! AYYAPPA MADAPPA ~
VIDE ELECTED MUNICEPALICGiMClLOR; ~ ..
WARD N0.31, S/O ;j V _
THYAGARAJA COLONY, _
RESPONDENTS
[By srl gaanvssh-Ia, R1 and 3, ' _SI'EF_|(.h|. FhanindIa,'*AdvoI_:ate for R2, sn KM. !.c_Ir:R5,' 13,12; 14-16, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, ~ _ 32...34'afld 36:
._ Sr! l'vi.fi.. M &.7, . . SI! s.'!(;.VAchaII;ra,.-Mvot:aueEfor RB, M/5. Pradeep.c;s. &Assodates-for-R17, an H.' Mphanlamar, Mvomiae. for R27, 'V sn _$I1nIvasagowda, Mvocateform-1,"
" _SrI Natatajflallai, Advocate for R9, 10, 13, 19, V' 20, 21, 24, 30, 33, 35 and 27] IIHISI Ammo» Is FILED UNDER--ARFICl..ES 225 Ann 227 THEE' coIIsII:u1Ion or INDIA PRAYING To QUASH IIIE I3i011FICAT'I0:N' DT. 15.6.2007 VIDE ANNEX.B; QUASH THE E fNo1II=IcAImtN DT. 4.9.2007 IN so mus ELEcrIon. I __T€)'THE"cIl'Y MUNICIPALITY MADIKERI VIDEIANNEX-K; AND Erc. THIS pE'mIoN comma on FOR HEARING ms rm, THE L' ' » A " MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner has called into question__th:e dated 15"' June, 2on7 (Annexure¥B)" «issueci in-kk am: 1 9.1.2.5.! respondent and the consequential'r,_eiactionl§;.conductedVl'to Madlkeri City Municipal Council.
2. The brief factsof'j'the'_V: "ara'A:'th_at thelurban Local Bodies ['U.i..B.s' roar short1Va'r;e an the basis of the population and falctbraél in Section 3 of Karnataka Mahicirpa;iitidésr Act; .:1j_9'64V':g['the said Act' for short]. Section that the Municipal Council shall coneist of of directly elected councilors narnaly speciflg;-..m_ column' oflthehttabie below in respect of municipal 'f,_Va'reas"ipn thevvcorrespondlng entries in column 2 thereof, ' -. Population of the municipal area No. of Councilors 2 3 ! Sl.No}"----
4* 1- t r .,_ a municipal area with a population of not less _ '_1h_an__2_0.0D0 out less than 40.0% ' 23 ' for a municipal area with a population of not less than 40.000 b_u_t lugs than 59,000 27 for a municipal area with a population of "not less than 50,000 but less than one iaith 4I 31 for a municipal area with a population of not lax than 50.000 but less than three ia_i_ti___is 35 HBH,
3. As per the afor extracted legislative number of counciiors for Madiken City ['MadIkeri C.M.C.' for short], is 23.
4. The first respondent b'rought an to 3 of the said Act incorporating provisonpigtofisub-section (2), which reads as foilowszkf' T __ on Quaneis 'is situated in igsrnailer age the Gouemor may, " sta':!':'--an2a'*--to bescity municipal area even population of less than my
5. In ii'iew_oi" arnendment, Madikeri Town Municipal - .v.§ounci<!i.'wa's upgradeVd_;__gii: attained the status of City Municipal eeccmiirrom theyear 2oo3.
The respondent issued a Notification, dated 15"' . .:_.';';..74.._';lune 20GfIj__A{Annexure-B) for Madikeri C.M.C. fixing the number I at _31. This was objected to by some residents of V' Incl-udlng a former Minister, Sri M.C. Nanaiah. The second respondent State Election Commission, acting on the representation of the said Sri Nanaiah, pointed out the fi.BH.
impemlissibllity of fixing the number of MadIken_;t:;iit'.s.'t._j:
However, the first respondent vide its letter, 2007-justified the fixing of the number ofci:nl'ncilors édflfiulljdgltilfl u C.M.C. at 31 and called upon' the r'es:ponde:lt""
necessary steps for holding tiladlilteri C.M.C. ' Therefore the second the process by Issuing the calendar of ovootsybiliiliosoptunbor, 2oo7. Pursuant thereto; have place. I
7. Srl...A_bdilila~El§.._the il.s.alllil.lii.-cum: for the petitioner urged th§...foIiowin'"gcententioiisi' 'l (I) _.'The't"ifl1.Fu9noed"v_"notification at Annexure-B ' for the conduct otei'liliL*tions for 31 territorial wards In Madiken a. t4'dhI§!pal Council is in utter violation of Section 11 ll' of.'the«_.saId Act. As -per the table extracted hereinabove __ as per the last population census, there can be only it 23 wards. I '(ii)--'§ A Theexecutlve has no discretion in fixing the strength of 4 a U.L.B. The fixation has to be strictly as per the legislative prescription.
HBH.
(Iii) T herelnbelejll;__ Srl Abdullah has relled on a judgment of ?§he:.f'"fi§'n?ble Supreme Court In the case of STATE mo ANOTHER v. n. nub or omens reported In none}; 517% so L hls demand that the'Irmfilighedh."rmtIfl¢e§:§oi*l.;v'b'e"'qilashed' and the electlonepe d_.eda.red°a$ lllefiaiv... .The relevant paragraphs of are extracted Vfilsfimptbn in favour or oconolstullzloolityror valldloa ole subordlnale loglslallon and him who attacks it to show that it _I$"5llvalid,:""«.!t is also well leoognlsed that a subordinate iegislaition can be challenged under any of _ ~ ~ the friifielrihg grounds:
Lack of legislative competence to -make the
- roargunolulnaoa leglslallon.
A Yvlolallon of fillldamental rlgms gualanloed under file Constitution oflndla.
" '(o) vlolalloo of any provlslon of the conslltutlon of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statue -under which it is made I or the limits of authority conkrred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnency to the laws of the land, that 15.
- any enactment.
HBH.
(0 Manifest arbltmtfness/un:'easonabIet.'esst:(ie: "
an extent where the court that the legislature never hatetrdett tofglve ' authority to make V' ~ _
16. me court emeyyvmeydgr«t subordinate legislation, nature, object and of enabIing"iict,'° and V alsd the area over whlcthy-newer has under the nvhether the subondinate Iegisiagion in the patent statute.
Whene a»mle*i:_ with a mandatory pmvs-:o::ttytc:r fiatzite; off eounse, the task of tire" amt easy. But when the or non-confonnity of': Isinet with teference to any specific p:'ovi3ien~Tdf.tiie_L'e.n§t;!Ing Act, but with the object and schemehf §'3;.ent Act, the court should proceed ~ 1. _ with caution befoive declafing invalidity. "
- thevvddddahovereferred Judgment, Sr! Abdullah euhntittedgtvéthatdyghien the legislature did not give any authority _under'-«4..Se.;;tion?'~" 13 of the said Act' to vary the number of hrescrlbed under Section 11 of the said Act, the act of the executive is unsustainable. attfmt Nextly, sn Abdullah ruled upon a judnment of the T Hon'ble Supreme court In the gase of KERALA 9-EH.
snnsnumn cueniu mozmuu o , STATE or. KEIIALA reported in wherein It is steted that rule '1~or-;'ehV:_:'euhordthete' legislation cannot be vioIetIve'ooii'a_hy te§ui§ietlonL made by the Parliament State In the said reported jud§ment;ithe"o§i§;§'=t;ie Court has this to say:
to be made in co;ofor:hit9"'with:'t!ie.brolw1siohs tor the Act whereunder 11 it meager tmtttae seme..feiust be in conformity with the other Act, as a subordinate he vioiative of any plenary by. Parliament or the State ' " .Legisiature§
18. to 37. xxxxxxxror Neither Section 18-). nor sub-sections (c)
(d) of Section 24 of the Act coniier power upon me ~ _ ':deIeg'at.ee to encroach upon the jurisdiction "of the other department of the "State and take upon its head something which is not within its domain or which otherwise would not come within the purview of the control and regulation of trade in liquor. The conditions imposed must. be such which would promote the policy or secure' the otuect of the Act. To nan. ' grant employment to one arrack worker 2 shop in preiierenoe to the toddy Q promotes the policy nor secures the ot;,*mj" h It rs not In dispute that the pdrtponand Rules is to rehabilitate the «mere enpleyees % shops. Rehabilitation 'of___Vthe e.mproyeesis;hnorkkkw;u:rn o the statutory scheme érrtbthtrs. ultra _V vines the pmvistons oft!-.e _ t '
(v) Srlh Abdullah "also support from the Hon'bIe:..5oosfeme§1AVttotntsiijndgrnertttn the case of s.n.
e mun tonnes ~::.'eun1on or mom -AND oTHeej.s'%réisoneot«ktn etimeoe sce1o1s wherein the 356(1) ofthe Constitution of Indie were unconstitutional.
theotherttthend, Srl Ramesh 'B. Anneppane-var, the Government Advocate for the respondents V No.1 and that In response to the draft' notification ' " 'j.__eTa»!ltng forvt§1e- objections to fixing the number of terrltorlat wards ' c.M.c. at 31, many oeople supported the move. . Government has thought it fit to fix the number of" Madlkerl
--teC.M.C; at 31, -as Madtkerl Is District Headquarters. HBH.
9. Sri K.N. Phanindra, the iearnw for respondent No.2 submitted that the electlon's_to,'V3:1::i'iiardvs"of Madikerl City Municipal Council have the results have been declared.
10. On the question ofa...iiiriieti*eer .petition is malntalnable or an electvldrivii'petitid:nAi.'.hisj_to he filed, If one has any grievance over' the :d"e4il:iilteti.§n:.of vconstituencies or the allotment of brought to my notice divergentvlerirs.V:e3t}:i:;essed " Division Benches. The Division or 'r. I-IANIJIIAITI-IAPPA rirro corneas v. AND omens reported in _1Lit zoos mm. mo ho-s observed thus:
_ if. '- _ " L518. reading of the aforesaid provisions shows in 1" r what "a bar is created for interference by courts in "electioio.rnetlers. Clause (a) makes it clear that, the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of ~.. ' * constituencies or the allotment of seats to such ~ * smstituencies shall not be called in question' in any court. $ub--clause (2) of Article 243-ZA empowers the legislature of a "State to make law, make pnovrsions with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. It is the validity of that law which HEM.
cannot be gone into by the Courts. In the to the petitioners are not challenging the validity of'any'_f * ~ , law. On the contrary their grievance is that "
conducted contrary to the law t're'a.iegisia_-we the State. In other words they to conducted in accordance with the' law ' it legislature and when "are n'ot_V_ H in accordance with law they are-----ch'ailerrging of the state. Therefore, no Court to go into the said grievance are not chaiienging tireifvaiidityi iajw.__paseed by the State Legrsrarure _ H 19. in View of clause (11) of Arrr.-.-re 24s--zs,ne of the petitioner could be agitated in an and thereibre, no ebction to any "muunicipaiity.'.si3aiis. be called in question in a writ T proceedings.-. _ aforesaid provision only reiterates the Iegai that matters which shouid be e ~agitated»in*~an election petition, when State Legisiature . remedy, the same cannot be agitated in i' any otherpioceedings. The Act provides for a remedy by way -petition as contained in section 21, the as so , tteiieristhat could be claimed in such an Election Petition x provided in section 22 and the grounds on which such an Election Petition could be instituted as contained in T Section 23. A reading of the aforesaid provision sets out what couid be the subject matter of an Election Petition. It is only the election of a Councilor. What couki be the HBH.
' subject matter of that Election petitibn cannot b_e_;5 _._ _ or adiudicated in this Court. The not oontainedin sees a in) of Article 243-243 is confined tethe ' is could be the subject matter of an 'aging. in j _ The grievance made out by the petitioners this Petition cannot be the -matte; of on Petition. The Act do not for any -for adiudication of such dispute.hti is inaintalnable for ietiiessingv eedlgrieu-once of the
- petitioneis. under clause (b) of Article 243-.ze;is no that? tot this ces:t_ to entertain this niitpetitionfii i ' o
11.LinetdtDnisinn case at BI-IARAMRAJ s. Mlmnantao t % sun: or xnnnxrnxn Ann A OTHERS' reported iztooa KAR. 2395 had this to say In " 'paAra1;ifiti:ph¥12.ttof the Judgment: -
..ff3.';'2; the alleged violation of the V _nmvisIon'icontained in the statute would not in any way V interest of the public; that it may infect the to f " kt interest of the candidates contesting the elections as no t nnaund to entertain the unit petition under the pn. jorisdiction. Moieover, it is not as if the petitioneis ate it not without any remedy.- On the other hand as we have ' already stated the petitioners can ceitainly file the election petitions making this as one of the gnound in the election petition. That is to say. the petitioners are not HEM without any remedy because this would "
the grounds in the election petition in terms .35(1)(iv) ofthe Act..." s .
12. Sri'K.M. Nataraj, the ismsssunssispssgsng«or respondents No.5, 11, 12, 14, 15,15, 22, 2s,h2:3%,1,z9,si32, 341 and 36 submitted that the petiti,onss.,__hae' '*vittuoiiy become Infructuous, as the eiections§:"a.re~.o\£er oi' the notification impugned herein. He furthef the petitioner has taken part tn__i:he p;otit:.onef9"has lost the eiedion; This b6InQ__thi;"'*5fi_::§ét,.; Nature], the pdzltioner is estoppedi'-from notification at Annexure-B and the e|ectIon«ss«i11eidV7pi:ret::a'ni:':itheteto. ANateraj----submItted that the petitioner has not filed Vhhanvv-'oi31ectI:o-nS~ ihrttresponse to the draft notification. Having fallethto objection, he cannot maintain thlo petition for copnsIderi~no«;.hIVs contention that the de-limitation! of wards is not " i~n_":nAAcco'rtiance with law.
14. Sri Nataraj brouoht to my notice the Full Bench idecision of this Court In the case of HATE or Kniuutrnxn HBH.
Auo Auoruen ETC. v. u. A. NAGEIIDIIAPPA reported in AIR 1991 KAR. 317, wherein remedy of writ petition under 'that Constitution of India is not a1ua_Ilabl:e..'vthe'=:'ect"er omission of an Election AuthorIty"'erising here-corholience of the provisions of the Act ~challehge-Ietlthertsuchvvdciior omission or the result of election talcenlooievcef:von'.:_tireV_.heels of such act or omission after the iiesiisanée under Rule 12 of the Rules.
submitted that the discretionary plower undezrtrticleel Constitution of India wl-ll be 17Texercisged' onlyéx in.._'furtherer1ce of interest of justice and not "makihdWout of a legal point. In support of this relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble _Supre'me court in the case of RAMNIKLAI. ll. II-I|.|'l'l'A Ann itrieiihiregreorueia it v. sure or MAHARASHTRA Ann omens elepoeeu In [sown sec 134 . -The relevant portion of the said ':"4:jud¢§:ment is extracted herelnbelowz FIBH "10. ...Whatever may have been the 2 2 the past, a time has come where the courts It the larger public interest in mind while "
power of granting stay/iniuncticln. ."_"l'i:e Article 226 is discretionary. It 7:. furtherance of interests of jrrst.ioe andnct vh making out of a legal point. in the.r_n'atter land acquisition for public't_iae"
and the public rnuerestrcoaleocegeoa very omen. one andlthe same. V Even in Val" granting.'-~of irfiunction or other _slmilafr. Vparficularly of an intedocuporyz ecrraliy discretionary. lire courts have to 1 areigriythe' interest iris-5-vis the private interest" wnise omen; the under Article 225 - indeed anyof their powers. It may even be open to the High CCoirr"t__':te "direct, in case it finds iinaily that tlre"*ac'quisition._ was vitiated on account of new with legalrequirement that the persons %_ e _ shall also be entitled to a particular amount or to awarded as a lump sum or calculated at a 'cw-Jtaln'7p.ert.%ventage of compensation payable. There are "may..._wa;.rs' of alibrding appropriate relief and redressing a quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the V» ' only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of "balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the courts while dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings."
HBH I
16. Sri Nataraj also brought to my notice,..t"irBe':'__t§'o;n'bie supreme court's Judgment In the case of repo_rt_etl- wnsrnan AND omens v. o.5r[Le.\rua1 are i it reported in (1996):! set: 445, ywherein heidithat may, In appropriate cases, may decline to ararit even ifit holds that the orderisivoid. Vi
17. Sri Nataraj has decision in the case of M. taxman o~nsm v. STATE or xnnuxrnn 1997(7) i(..l..J. use wherein is cannot substitute its concept of . smaller urban' of the State Government; in the __matter_;oi' e.defii1Ii*=9,,V1V'the'limits of an area, the Court cannot the around oi' alleged inconvenience of the reSltle'nts." 7.. _ V V Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for ' respondents No.6 and 7, sailing with the petitioner, submitted where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain V u the thing must be done In that way or not at all. when the statute prescribes for the fixing of number of counciio HBH. T T depending on the population, the executive other factors or formula for determining the of_.teln;!torlai' wards of an U.L.B. In support of his T, A' I the judgments of the Hon'b|e vsuprenaeiicourtglgiri, nmcnnnonn xesmw meeoweeeeeeeeme mo omens reported inexeeewem em: nuxm cnnnn snvm uu. v. unte'ni on,/ultimate AND omens reported In Am 1e}71§trsci7gp_[iei~i ff 'V
19. submissions, relying on the judgment bstlnrerne' Court In the case of HASIIAII ABIIAS snwnnvt eeeeeems snwnn AND omens _VVreporte;I' in..(2Ilo':)_::l' 3.35, Sri Abdullah contended that the 1"e.Vprl'ncinies_E"of.estoppelprilalver, acquiescence, res judicata, which aAre.V_p-rocedu'ren_|_ ihe--nature_ would have no application for a case where'-an ereerlhas been passed by the Tribunal/Court, which i it no anthonty In that behalf. 'i'he relevant portion of the said is extracted hereinbeiow:
"22. The cone question is as to whether an older passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would he a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver % RBH
- and acquiescence or even res judicate '« procedural In nature would have no appllcatlonjrr e -e 4_ where an order has been passed; _ the V which has no authority in that ' by a court widioutjudsdiotioo would = being a nullity, the same orrzl .arily eflect ta..." = ._ _
20. on careful correitleratlorglaioiéeubrnieaions made at the bar, I am convinced that:'this'petition' be thrown out on technicailtlesjv wiien€tiTie taken part in the 0 elections he l'romV';.challenglno the notlflcation which issued?.&inV_{violation _ efw the -'statutory T. prescriptions contained irz__ Section' 'of the said Act. Nor can the Detitionfera the "nevnfsuited/tattle around of ms not fllIn0 the the dralitmnotlflcation proposing to fix the number of territorial: Madlkerl C.M.C. at 31. The requirements contained said Section are mandatory. The legislative ' " ',"-p'rescrlptiorr:'is such that it cannot he wished away as directory. when the legislature, In exercise of its wisdom, has 0 the number of councllors at' 23- for a Municipal area with a "population between 20,000 and 40,000, the Executive has fixed fish, it at 31. The timely and tenable objections raised by respondent State Election Commission, has not by the first respondent. The Executi:ueVa_:ctinn.'yls~: 7. it with the legislative prescriptlon._ Further it also ivliidtoteiy disregard of the valid objections byhthevgsecondirespondent State Election Comrnissiofi:-,,,,.
22. I have.w.tvherefore. jjnov-V in quashing the impugned I_ direct the flrst respondent toiflattne of Madikeri c.M.c. at 23, so ieng remains between 20,000 and 4o,ooo baseeon the «last em"n'?'extiy..iei't with the question of whether the elections 'heidjniirsuent to the impugned notification are to be aeeiered ;.«.~.ie...i and thereafter order fresh elections. As elections. arealready held after spending enormous amount of _ _ ' time," it may not be in public interest to issue any nullifying the elections. The balance has to be-struck . ' "vbyllensurlng the convergence of the interests of Justice and the Interests of public. As laudably held by the Hon'ble supreme HEM ___t;ourt in the case of IIAI-IIIlIl(I.Al. (supra), the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of jitfas exercised In furtherance of Interest offjtistice on t ij the making out of a legal point. _ ThlslA1CotirtA"mavt,)b"_.._:§;g~ »appi:opn'ate cases, decline to grant the 'lfiitt that the notification is void. All the~releva'nt'i.fa§:tors' arettobei taken into - pragmatic consideration. Iflthe it results in the postponementyipof self-government for _Madli<erI. a local self-
government"wouEd: the"'constltutlonai mandate itself. Besides, :self--government for Madtkeri, the implernentation..oi* rna;.ny~..deu7elopmental works for Madllterl may " any angle, directing re-election is not Vtfeasihle. tfmibsequent event of holding the elections can not be erased, ciockycan not be put back.
.. :24. is also profitable to refer to the decision of the it if-ion'l:!e.'a"Supreme Court in the case of S.lI. IOIIMAI (supra) "fr-.!hesreIn the proclamations under Article 356 of the Constitution-
"of India were declared as unconstitutional. . But they HBH p (proclamatlons) were not formally struck down ln.&.fitevtf"%ef"vthe holdlno of the elections In the concerned states.-stint 365 (11) of the said judgment, the li-lo'n'ble has at this to say.
.-«:55 (11). The pmciamatiiin naiedngiti 21, in respect of xamaiaka icivii 'Pb: asm.= 1999) and the proclamation _ in respect of Meghalaya j_?--7'of 1992) aie unconstihitinnal, Butiforithe fa¢t~tiiatV elections have since takeii in 'bi;it'!_t the states «mi new Legislative Assemblies have come into existence -
we 1 down the proclamations andivvdirectedvfiiej-~ieviiia!__'and restoration of the respective governinentsland Assemblies. The Civil Appeal Na.3645"ef_'198$9 and'i"ransrened Cases N055 and 7 of V_'15§392_1&'!lf.! allowedtflficaiflingbv. civil Appeals Nos.193 and 1A a 1_i9&?91Vi*eIating to Nagaland are disposed of in tierins "
_,oi- opinion expressed by us on the meaning and * a pnrporttlrifnrticie 74(2) of the Constitution." the result, I allow this petition In part, I declare ' ilrnpugned notification, dated 15"' June, 2007 as Illegal. .._"'v"Hoiiiiever, In publlc Interest, the subsequent event of holding of igthe electionsls saved. The respondent No.1 shall unerrlnoly flat the number of councllors strictly In accordance wlth the HEM prescription contained in section 11(i)(a) of whenever the next elections to the Madlkerl K
26. No order as to costs.
.,,., Iudqe