Karnataka High Court
M Mallikarjuna vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29095
WP No. 15280 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 15280 OF 2024 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
M. MALLIKARJUNA,
S/O MAHADEVAPPA C,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
MAYAKONDA GRAM PANCHAYAT,
MEMBER, MAYAKONDA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 577 534.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA BENGALURU - 560 001,
THEJESWINI REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KARNATAKA NO. 8, 1ST FLOOR,
K.S.C.M.F. BUILDING ANNEXE,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NO. 16,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 080.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29095
WP No. 15280 of 2024
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
5. THE PDO,
MAYAKONDA GRAM PANCHAYATH,
MAYAKONDA, DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R4;
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R4 IN NO.
RACHU.CR.02/2023-24 DATED 27/06/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
PRODUCED IN THE WP AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) The petitioner, an elected member of the Mayakonda Gram Panchayath of Davanegere Taluk and District, is before this Court aggrieved of the method adopted by the returning officer in the matter of selecting the reservation for the posts of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of the Gram -3- NC: 2024:KHC:29095 WP No. 15280 of 2024 Panchayath. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly a computerized system known as GPPVP application has been adopted in the matter of rotation in reservation, and the State Election Commission issued a communication dated 26.05.2023 at Annexure-E to all the Deputy Commissioners to follow the procedures contemplated therein. Learned counsel submits while pointing out to Annexure-E that there is no provision for choosing the reservation by way of a lottery system. Moreover, it is submitted that the reservation to the post of Adyaksha is given to the BCM (B) women, when there is no member in the Gram Panchayath under the said category.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State and the Deputy Commissioner submits that Annexure-E is not the rules governing, the rotation in reservation for the post of the adyaksha and upadyaksha of the Gram Panchayaths in the state. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29095 WP No. 15280 of 2024
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out to Section 44 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and submits that provision is made for rotation in reservation in Section 44. Further, Clause (a) of sub-Section (2) governs the rotation in reservation insofar as Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes categories are concerned, while Clause (b) of sub-Section (2) governs the rotation in reservation of the post of Backward Classes. Further, the State Election Commission has also issued a government order dated 25.05.2023 prescribing guidelines for the rotation of reservations. The government order dated 25.05.2023 is essentially the procedure that is required to be adopted, and at clause 6, it is clearly stated that whenever a situation arises where more than one Gram Panchayath stands on the same footing and the post available is only one, or if there are more gram panchayaths than the posts available, then it prescribes that a decision shall be taken by draw of lottery and the concerned gram panchayath should be chosen accordingly. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29095 WP No. 15280 of 2024 In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that no fault can be found in the action of the returning officer in having adopted the lottery system to choose between two gram panchayaths, namely, Mayakonda and Kanakagondahalli. Since there was only one post available in the category BCM(B) women in that regard, a lottery was picked and an endorsement has also been issued to the petitioner on 31.05.2024 at Annexure- K.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General and on perusing petition papers, this Court finds that there is ample justification for the process adopted by the returning officer in choosing between two gram panchayaths that were standing on the same footing.
5. Under such circumstances, as prescribed in the guidelines, the returning officer has adopted the lottery system and decided the issue. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found in the action of the returning officer. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29095 WP No. 15280 of 2024
6. Insofar as the other contention of the petitioner that there is no member in the gram panchayath Mayakonda in the category of BCM(B) women. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is one candidate available in the gram panchayath in the said category. Even otherwise, if there is a situation where there is no member in the said category where reservations are provided, an alternative method to be followed is also prescribed under Section 44 of the Act.
7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv CT BHK