Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Commission For ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2015
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JUNE 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Writ Petition No.23041/2015 (LB-BMP)
C/w. Writ Petition Nos.23054 & 23092-98/2015 (LB-ELE)
In W.P.No.23041/2015 :
Between :
Karnataka State Commission
For scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Represented by its Member Secretary
No.526, 5th Floor, M.S.Building,
Bangalore. .. Petitioner
( By Sri Gopal Subramanium, Sr.Counsel,
Sri Sunil Dutt Yadav S., Advocate &
Sri Ankur Kashyap, Advocate )
In Writ Petition Nos.23054 & 23092-98/2015
1. M.K.Gunashekar
Aged 54 years,
S/o late M.K.Krishnappa
R/at No.19/20, Ward No.63,
1st Cross, Shivaji Road, W.K.Palya,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore - 72.
2. Shri.B.N.Manjunatha Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o.Narayana Reddy,
R/a.No.84/19, 1st Main Road,
6th Cross, Maruthinagar,
Madivala, Bangalore - 68.
2
3. Shri.S.M.Murugesh Mudaliar,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o.Swamy Kannan,
R/a.No.200, 2nd C Main,
8th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 34.
4. Shri.O.Manjunath,
Aged abut 51 years,
S/o.Obaiah,
R/a.No.22, Ward No.185,
Manjunatha Layout, Kanakanagar,
Yalachenahalli, J.P.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 78.
5. Shri.Keshava Murthy.S.
Aged about 49 years,
S/o.Srinivasa Murthy.K.N.
R/a.No.19/K, 14th Cross,
1st Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 10.
6. Shri.S.Gangadhar,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o.Siddalingappa,
R/a.,Mohna Mansion Konankunte,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Konanakunte, Bangalore South,
Bangalore 62.
7. Shri.G.N.R.Babu,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o.Late G.Narayan Swamy Reddy,
R/a.No.18, 6th Main,
N.S.Palya Village, BTM 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 68.
8. Shri.R.Narayana Swamy,
S/o.Late Ramaiah,
R/a.No.291, 3rd Cross,
2nd Phase, Rajamahal Vilas 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 94. Petitioners
3
( By Sri Gopal Subramanium, Sr.Counsel,
Sri J.Prashanth, Advocate )
And :
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep.by the Chief Secretary,
Vidhanasoudha,
Vidhana Veedhi,
Bangalore.
2. Secretary (Urban Development)
Vikasa Soudha,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangaldore.
3. The Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike,
Rep.by its Commissioner,
N.R.Square, Bangalore.
4. The State Election Commission,
Rep.by its Secretary,
KSCMF Building (Annexe)
No.8, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore. .. Respondents
(common)
( By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Addl.Advocate General
a/w. Sri D.Ashwathapa, AGA for R-1 to 3
and Sri K.N.Phanindra, Advocate for R-4 )
Writ Petition No.23041/2015 is filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R-1, 2 and 4
to provide for reservation as envisaged under Article 243T by
taking into account the population census report of 2011 in terms
of Article 243 (f) of the Constitution of India.
Writ Petition Nos.23054 & 23092-98/2015 are filed under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the
official respondents to conduct the elections to the Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike after undertaking the exercise of
4
trifurcation of BBMP and thereafter conduct delimitation on the
basis of number of wards and also to provide rotation for
reservation of the wards.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
These petitions deal with the election of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Council (`BBMP' for short) which are to be held for the period 2012 to 2015. The prayer in Writ Petition No.23041/2015 is as under :
" a) Issue a writ of order of directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to provide for reservation as envisaged under Article 243T by taking into account the population census report of 2011 in terms of Article 243 (f) of the Constitution of India.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to conduct the elections to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike after undertaking the exercise of delimitation in accordance with the 5 Deputy Commissioner dated 05.02.2015 as per Annexure-F vide No.D.O.No.ELN(BBM))CR/01/14-15."
The prayer in Writ Petition Nos.23054 & 23092- 98/2015 reads as under :
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the official
respondents to conduct the elections to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike after undertaking the exercise of trifurcation of BBMP and thereafter conduct delimitation on the basis of number of wards and also to provide rotation for reservation of the wards."
2. The election has already been a subject matter of litigation both before this Court as well as before the Apex Court. Apprehending that the election to the BBMP would not take place as required under the law, a number of petitions were filed viz., Writ Petition Nos.7939-40/2015 & connected matters, before this Court. The petitioners prayed that a direction be given to the Government to hold the BBMP 6 election in accordance with Article 243U of the Constitution of India. By judgment dated 30th March 2015, while allowing the writ petitions, a learned Single Judge also issued certain directions. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to hold the election to BBMP on or before 30.5.2015, that the election shall be conducted on the existing delimitation of wards and updated electoral rolls, that the State Government should publish notification regarding rotation of seats meant for reserved category on or before 13.4.2015, and on such publication, the Commission shall issue calendar of events so as to conclude the entire electoral process on or before 30.5.2015.
3. Since the State was aggrieved by the said judgment, it filed an appeal before the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1225 & 1234- 36/2015. By judgment dated 24.4.2015, the learned Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and held that in view of the dissolution of BBMP on 7 18.4.2015, a period of six months was available for conducting the elections for the BBMP.
4. Since the State Election Commission was aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench, it filed a SLP, namely Civil Appeal Nos.4237-38 of 2015 (S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.13469-13470 of 2015) & connected matters. By the judgment dated 5.5.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the learned Division Bench, restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and has granted the State Government three months time to conclude the election to the BBMP.
5. Mr.Gopal Subramanium, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner claims that an anomalous situation has arisen as the learned Single Judge had directed that the election should be conducted on the basis of existing delimitation of wards. However, the existing delimitation of wards and the reservations of seats were made on the basis of Census of 2001. But, according to Article 243T of the Constitution of India, certain seats shall be reserved for scheduled Caste and 8 scheduled Tribe in every Municipality. In every Municipality, the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by according to the population of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe existing in the municipal area. The word "population" has been defined under Article 243P(g) of the Constitution of India as meaning "the population as ascertained as the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published". According to the learned Senior Counsel, the last census for which the figures have been published is the census of 2011. Yet the direction issued by the learned Single Judge requires that the delimitation and reservation of seats should be done on the basis of census of 2001, instead of on the basis of census of 2011. Hence, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are not in consonance with the Article 243T of the Constitution of India.
6. In the light of anomalous situation pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, as Mr.A.S.Ponnanna, the learned 9 Addl.Advocate General of the State informs this court that the Government plans for delimiting the wards and for reserving the seats in accordance with the census of 2011. However, as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is creating an obstacle for carrying out the delimitation and for reserving the seats on the basis of census of 2011, the Government undertakes to immediately file an application for clarification before the learned Single Judge.
In the light of the undertaking given by the learned Addl.Advocate General, no further order is to be passed by this Court. Therefore, these Petitions are, hereby, disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-