Sri T S Shrinivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T S Shrinivas vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE,
DATED THIS THE 20"" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 

BEFORE

THE HOi\E'Bi..E MR. JUSTICE ASHO.%<~B..,HIN_C§iiG'IE.RIE'   

WRIT PETITION Nos.25s53~258s4/zoio   

BETWEEN:

1.

AM):

Sri T.S. Shrinivas,  

S/0 Sri T.K. Subramanya'm, 

Aged about 39 years. " I

Sri Nazeem ?asha,.__   _   
S/o Ameer Jan,        
Aged about.29vyea,rs. " '   

Both are IR./_a't..ﬁ""'»'1f;.ross._.j"'Bovit C-oloniy,
Gandhjnagar; .Ti,ptu'2j -- .5472_ 20:.

Tumkur' Di.stri.e:t'.='ff-,_"    Petitioners

(B'y.__Sri_V."B_..'4Sio'da"r'ah1aiah, Advocate)

A'i'h«e  ofika rnata ka.

 ..__D"epa'rtrr:e_nt of Urban Development,

M.S--..,Bu'iiding,j;D'r. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore --"j,S72 101.

-V Represented by its Secretary.

"'Vg,T'he..DeVpsuty Commissioner,
. " Tumkguf District,
.  T-Ivjmikur -- 572 101.

.  "The Assistant Commissioner,
' Tiptur Sub Division,

Tumkur -- 572 201.



2

4. The City Municipal Council,
Tiptur, Tumkur District -- 572 201.
Represented by its Commissioner.

5. Smt.C.M. Saraswathi @ Preeti,

W/o B. Chahnappa,

Aged about 38 years,

R/o Kanchaghatta,

Tiptur Taluk,

Tumkur District -- 572 202.

. , _...,,Respoiid.entsi,

(By sri K.M.Nataraj, AAG and Sri R.Devdas,:1'AnG'A fcjrjn-3. to

Sri Sridhar, Advocate for Sri Rarnesh P.Kuikarriiv'"fo;V-3:5);

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying tol'q'ua_sh the E'10tifi'C*3t¥0F} dated
29.7.2010 published by the} Rzi. the'*--.._State_ of Karnataka,
Department of Urban Deveiopment,---.l9l.'S.$ti-il'di,ng., Dr.Ambedkar
Veedhi, Bangalore -- 572 101...re,or.esented"by"'its"Secretary vide
Annexure-E so far it-raeiates] to, r_ese.ry'i.:1'g_ ti'ierPresident post of

R4, the City E\(iti»nicii.p'a.!_Cot1ncil,__Tiptui',""Tumkur District

represented tiny its  $C(W) at S|.No.41; and etc.

These writipetitio'n_s"Vcom:i:hgC on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made' th-ei'foEi'owing:

 ._.The eiected as the councilors of Tiptur City

V7.1fhiisinicipal._Counci:li.:*..--"their grievance is over the throwing open the

~ --i«i'.j'_i;»-;>«s,t'of Presideiit of the iocal body to the SC(W) category.

  V.B. Siddaramaiah, the iearned counsel for the

"i.p'et§.ti,or{ers subniits that in W.P.No.21 55/08, the respondent No.1

Viiiiwhaswwheld out the assurance that in the next term (sixth term), PEEK 3 the Tiptur City Municipai Council is eligible for BCA/BCB/BCB(W) categories. Acting contrary to what they have said in their statement of obgiections in the earlier writ petition, the decision- makers have now given it to the SC(W) category.

3. Sri Siddaramaiah further submits that woman belonging to the SC category.

earmaridng of the post for SC(W) is not :corre.ct; ri-ot'~ve:v,en:,a_.' singie councilor belonging to that -category" is submits that the respondent No.5 spui*io.usly"'ciaim:edv'fthat she belonged to SC. On i<nowing._the t'ruti1,.l"th_e».,ycc.mpetent authority has alreadyllwithdiriawniiwlthe"«..caste.Wcertificate issued to the respondent CAs_.slhVe_zldoes«.not beiong to SC, she is not entitled to seek tlhegeiectioln. tosthe post of President ciaiming to :,tO the ' it C}:-..AV"l.-.$«ri"'Sid_'d.aramaiah agitates that the respondent No.5 is v7?l__to «be pre*venteci".V by the concerned authorities from seeking 41 .::Ve'i'e"ci;i:o'i:Viito the office in question. He also requests that the Vi."V..;ne_cess-ai*y"direction be given to initiate the criminai proceedings her. He prays for a direction to the respondents to

335. consider the petitioners' representation (Annexure-L) in this regard.

5. Sri K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional..._(3id$fotcat'e_ Generai for the respondent i\los.1 to 3 submits that writ proceedings (W.P.No.2155/08), no the office in question wouid be resei'veCl~._ categories. He would submit that a"sv,§*--mattei"--- of'~fa."c:t wetgelrﬂ/thing V has to be done and is beingj'.;19he'.~'i'n"accordance'«wVi'th""lVaw only. He submits that out of 44 city}. mugnicigaii are reserved for SC category andS£_:are category. The earmarking categories of SC and sew) has svtricti--yVbeeniiiinl'theebasis of the percentage of the people beI_onging4""to_CSC[Sif".categories in the descending order. Inrtiie'list:so."inregaredgTibtur is at Sl.No.33. {he local bodies neither SC or SC(W) reservation without .Vl""*~v'Ena king departulre.

. 6.a__Sri"K.M. Nataraj further submits that the petitioners' CV"cf'VLretgresentation, dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure-L) would be V cons'i'dered in accordance with law.

998%.

7. Sri Sridhar, the learned counsel for the caveator respondent No.5 brings to my notice the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21SS/O8, wherein this Court has observed "Tiptur City Municipal Council has to wait till the reser'va'ti.on point: of SC/ST moves froin top to down." Based on tlfris the office in question has gone to SC(W)_..catego:ry,'._ petitioners can have no grievance, so co'nten.c|S jSri_ j

8. Regarding withdrawal of the cfastfe" certifi%c.ate_VVearlier issued to the petitioners, Sri Sridhar thatthe Tahsildar's order is challenged by way Bitagip.ea--!._"héfo_re the Appeilate Authority. l,-Jlvewaiso thexcovntroversy over the caste status of the'res'pondentAI_ljVl\lo';Sjis. subject matter of E.P.No.1/O8 pending consideration 'before Civil Judge (Jr.¥3n..), Tiptur. :As asvreserving the office in question for SC(W) is concernecl,« 1" hesitation in holding that it is done in accordance wVith'S;ection 42(2~--A) of the Karnataka Municipalities the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-

""V»".".:;Pr.esideVn't)"Election Rules, 1965 and the guidelines. The giving of the President of the iocai bodies based on the 4""<pércentage of the SC/ST population in the descending order EBH 6 absoluteiy meets the requirement of law. Further, there is no departure even after Tiptur, which is at Sl.l\io.33 in the chart upto Si.No.38.

10. I am afraid no reiief can be granted to the petitioh«e'r'5, insofar as the reservation of the office is concerned; the Government's earlier statement of.:otbj.ectio'_ns'v;beI--cau'se4.'_the it earlier statement speaks of the eiigibiiity. :f'ix_at.i.on_x roster depends on the entitlemen't.--.,:_The discretionit-rbetfweerij the * 5' eligibility and entitlement cannot be----bl.uvrretl.. lZ')e'pending on its place, Tiptur has got its iavxrful.'reseruatioit:category of SC(W). Therefore, to any other category is 5'

11.'4:Tv}1e of the petitioners arising from the. caistieivcertificate of the respondent No.5 is also i"r¢V=2VCi-i;fiViT1ed.v4:"t«Qi be-considered. No blanket direction can be "["is::=_.:eci to'««thev.__'RetAu'rAning Officer to reject in limine the nomination ifan.y',.-to be filed by the respondent No.5. On her fiiing «nomination papers, it is aiways open to the petitioners and toti:rer..councilors to raise their objections. It is for the Returning iii"--«V.AV:OffiVcer to consider the claims of the respondent No.5 and the $935!.

objections of the petitioners and of others, if any, and then..__take a decision as to whether the ﬁfth respondent's nomination is vaiid in all respects including her ciaim to be belc-§1:c;1in4c_'jy:'t:'c')" * SC category. 1

12. As far as initiating the necessa'ry"procee.d'ir2i;;'s iagéiinstwf the respondent No.5 is concerneVdi*,..:._V"the seeping.'-I respondent Deputy Commissioner is the"petitioner's representation (Annexiire--L herein)' opportunities to ail the parties" the same in accordance with :'ia__w-;:__"';.~_

13. These petiitions No order as to costs.

Sd/-3 Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court