Karnataka High Court
Sri. Vasanth. B. H vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 September, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.17191/2022 (LB-BMP) C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.16924/2022, 16980/2022, 16989/2022,
17061/2022, 17401/2022 (LB-ELE), 17510/2022, 17714/2022
(LB-ELE), 18325/2022, (LB-ELE) 18592/2022 (LB-ELE),
18609/2022, 18631/2022 (LB-ELE), 18632/2022, 18964/2022
(LB-ELE), 18971/2022 (LB-ELE), 18980/2022
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17191/2022:
BETWEEN:
V. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
#218A, OPP. DODDABANASAVADI BUS STOP,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD 100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S. PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI ROHAN V TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2),
#436, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NO.16,
2
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ALLOTMENT OF UNRESERVED/GENERAL CATEGORY SEAT MADE
TO BANASAWADI WARD FALLING UNDER THE SARAVANGA
NAGARA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.8.2022 BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022 AT ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16924/2022:
BETWEEN:
K. MAHADEVA
S/O KAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.23, 3RD CROSS,
SRINIVAGILU, EJIPURA WARD:185,
BENGALURU-560 047.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK S. HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI JAYAMOVIL M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
3
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.16, II AND III FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU
DATED 16.08.2022, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, WHEREBY THE
R-1 AND R-2 HAVE FINALIZED THE RESERVATION OF WARDS TO
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE IN EXERCISE OF
THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE BRUHAT
BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 (THE "BBMP
ACT")-ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16980/2022:
BETWEEN:
PALANI DAYALAN
S/O. LOGANATHAN,
4
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.20, PATEL NANJUNDAPPA ROAD,
RAMASWAMY, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 033.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S. PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2),
NO.436, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
NO.16, BALLARI ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE RESERVATION MADE TO KADUGONDANAHALLI,
BANASAVADI KAMMANAHALLI AND LINGARAJAPURAM WARDS
FALLING UNDER THE SARAVANGA NAGARA ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUENCY VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.8.2022 BEARING
NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
5
IN WRIT PETITION NO.16989/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI VASANTH B.H.
S/O SRI BHOOPAL B,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.693,
32ND MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARENDRA P.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT(BBMP-2),
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.16, 3RD FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADHASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
6
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU,
DATED 16.08.2022, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - BBMP AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17061/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRA SHEKAR. K
S/O KAVERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#14 NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
2. GEETHA
W/O SANTHOSH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
#95, NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
3. MANOJ KUMAR H
S/O HANUMANTHARAYA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
#63, G K LAYOUT, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
7
4. GANGADHARA P
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#70, G.K. LAYOUT,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
5. RAJBABU V
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
#63-64, G K LAYOUT,
PARAPPANA AGRAHARA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
6. POORNIMA
W/O MANIKANTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
#51, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR CENTRAL JAIL,
NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
7. GOWRAMMA
W/O GOVINDASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
#192/2, NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
8. RAMANJANAPPA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#35, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
NAGANATHAPURA,
8
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
9. VENKATALAKSHMI
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 100.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.16, II AND III FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
9
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU,
DATED 16.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, WHEREBY THE
R-1 AND R-2 HAVE FINALIZED THE RESERVATION OF WARDS TO
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE IN EXERCISE OF
THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE BRUHAT
BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 (THE "BBMP ACT")
-ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17401/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRINIVAS P
S/O LATE POOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.41, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR,
BANASAWADI, KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P.NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
2. M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
#75, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEW A.K.COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
3. MADHUKUMAR K
S/O KENCHAPPA,
10
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO.39, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
NEW A.K. COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
4. MUNIRAJ K
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.28 NEW A.K. COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU -560 043.
5. JAYARAM
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.51, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
6. NAGA N
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#108, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR, BANASAWADI
KIALYANANAGAR, B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
7. NAGESH R
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
#95, 10TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR,
BANASAWADI KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
8. C. MANJUNATH
S/O CHIKKA APPAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
#75, OLD A.K. COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI,
11
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
9. ANAND KUMAR K
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
#04, 1ST CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR,
BANASAWADI, KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
10. SRINIVAS M
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
#34, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR,
BANASAWADI KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
11. MAHESH M
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.20, 4TH CROSS ROAD,
NEW A.K.COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
12. KRISHNAPPA M
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
#11, 4TH CROSS ROAD,
NEW A.K. COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
13. GOVINDASWAMY
S/O LATE GORALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
12
#79, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
NEW A.K. COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
14. JAYARAM V
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA P,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
#218/A, OPP BUS STOP
DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
15. DEEPU
S/O LATE PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
#220, OLD NEW A.K. COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI, KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
16. SOMESH D
S/O DODDA THAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
#46, 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
NEW A.K. COLONY, DODDABANASAWADI,
KALYANANAGAR, B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
17. K. MUNIYAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
#28, NEW A.K. COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
18. SUNIL KUMAR M
S/O MUNIYAPPA V
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
#20, 4TH CROSS, NEW A.K. COLONY,
13
DODDABANASAWADI, KALYANANAGAR,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
19. MUNIYAPPA P
S/O LATE POOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
#101, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PILLAREDDY NAGAR, BANASAWADI,
KALYANANAGAR, B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
20. HANUMANTHU K
S/O M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
#07, 1ST CROSS, 5TH MAIN PILLAREDDY NAGAR,
OMBR LAYOUT, BANASAWADI
KALYANANAGAR, B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100
BENGALURU-560 043.
21. M. ASHWATH
S/O B. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
#74, 1ST MIAN ROAD, NEW A.K. COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI,
B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
22. C. GOVINDARAJ
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOOUT 43 YEARS,
#19, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEW A.K. COLONY,
DODDABANASAWADI, B.B.M.P. NEW WARD NO.100,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S. PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
14
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NO.16,
BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ALLOTMENT OF UNRESERVED / GENERAL CATEGORY
SEAT MADE TO BANASAVADI WARD FALLING UNDER THE
SARAVANGA NAGARA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY VIDE
NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.2022 BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS
2022 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17510/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI DEVARAJU K
S/O SRI T. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.491/6,
PARAS NIVRITI NILAYA,
6TH MAIN ROAD, MAHESHWARINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 057.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS A.R., ADVOCATE)
15
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2),
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.16,
3RD FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD,
SADHASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU,
16
DATED 16.08.2022, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA-BBMP AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.17714/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINATH
S/O SEETHARAM,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 2ND CROSS,
HOSAHALLI, VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LOKESHA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-01.
2. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT (BBMP-2),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
4. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE,
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
17
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022,
BENGALURU, DATED 16.08.2022 ISSUED BY TEH R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18325/2022:
BETWEEN:
MUJAHID PASHA
S/O B.S. ANWAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.11, 8TH CROSS,
SOMESHWARA NAGAR,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.436, 4TH FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA
NO.16, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080, KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1;
18
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS
2022(E), BENGALURU DATED 03.08.2022 AT ANNEXURE-A AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU, DATED 16.08.2022 AT
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18592/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAN KRISHNA V
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, SRI R.K. NILAYA,
T.C. PALYA MAIN ROAD,
HOYSALA NAGAR,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT(BBMP-2),
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
19
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR,
KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
VASANTHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.2022
BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE
R2-UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18609/2022:
BETWEEN:
KRISHNE GOWDA C
S/O CHIKKANANJE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, 1ST MAIN ORAD
CHINNAPPA GARDEN, BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S. PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)
20
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETAY.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE KARNSATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.16, II AND III FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU
DATED 16.08.2022, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, WHEREBY THE
R1 AND 2 HAVE FINALIZED THE RESERVATION OF WARDS TO
21
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE IN EXERCISE OF
THE POWERS CONERRED UNDER SECRETARY 7 OF THE BRUHAT
BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT, 2020 (THE "BBMP ACT")
- ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18631/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B.S. MANJUNATH REDDY
S/O SHAMANNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.59/3, PATEL
PATEL SHAMANNA REDDY LAYOUT
NEAR DAILY BREAD FACTORY,
VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 068.
2. SRI MUNIREDDI
S/O GOPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.04, BELAKU
9TH A CROSS, VIRAT NAGAR
BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 068.
3. SRI SREENATH M
S/O MUNI REDDY K.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, 4TH CROSS
11TH MAIN VIRAT NAGAR
BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JAYAMOVIL M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
22
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2),
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQURE,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED
16.08.2022 BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU
PASSED BY THE R2-UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A);
DIRECTING THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO RE-CONDUCT THE
PROCESS OF RESERVATION OF CATEGORIES OF WARDS AFRESH
IN A SCIENTIFIC MANNER ADHERING TO THE GUIDELINES AND
RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.
23
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18632/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VISHWANATHAN M S
S/O LATE M. SHAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.102/1, HOUSE NO.4/1,
1ST FLOOR, 21ST 8TH CROSS,
MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
2. SRI C. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE D. CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.26, 6TH CROSS,
R.A. ROAD, EJIPURA,
VIVEKANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
3. SRI R. MUKUNDAN
S/O LATE RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, 20TH 'J' CROSS,
EJIPURA, VIVEKANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T.K. RAJAGOPALA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
24
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.16, II AND III FLOOR,
BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 080,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU
DATED 09.09.2022 IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED ISSUED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18964/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI C. VENKATASWAMAPPA
S/O CHIKKABAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
25
R/AT NO.109B, ANUGRAHA NILAYA,
2ND CROSS, CB LAYOUT,
DEVI NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI WARD,
BANGALORE-560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAJWAL P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2),
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
26
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16.8.2022 BEARING
NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE R-2
UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18971/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI NAGARAJU S M
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.36, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. SWAMINI G. MOHANABAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP -2),
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
27
BENGALURU-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16/08/2022 BEARING
NO. UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT - UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - "A") AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18980/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI AJEETH
S/O A.P. GIRIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100, "RAMESH NIVAS",
12TH CROSS, R.M. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 016.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
SMT. SWAMINI G. MOHANABAL, ADVOCATE)
28
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP-2),
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-56 0002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
NO. 8, 1ST FLOOR, KSCMF BUILDING,
CUNNINGHAM RAOD, VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU-56 0052,
REPRESNETED BY ITS
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG., A/W
SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI V. SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.2022 BEARING
NO.UDD 102 BBS 2022, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE R-2 -
UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-"A") AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
29
ORDER
The notification dated 16.8.2022 issued by the Department of Urban Development whereby the State Government has finalized the reservation of wards to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short `BBMP') in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, 2020 (for short `BBMP Act, 2020) is impugned in all these writ petitions and in WP Nos.17191, 16924, 16980, 17061, 17401, 18325, 18592, 18609, 18631, 18632, 18964, 18971 and 18980 of 2022, the petitioners have also challenged the report dated 21.7.2022 formulated by Dr.Justice K Bhaktavatsala Commission of Enquiry for OBC Reservation in Local Body Elections in the State of Karnataka.
2. The BBMP is the body constituted and was established under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Bengaluru City originally comprised 198 wards, which was determined under the KMC Act, 1976. The election to the councilors of the BBMP was held in September, 2020 and term of the councilors was for a period of five years 30 which expired on 10.9.2020. Since the Government did not conduct elections after expiry of terms of the councilors, the
3. For effective administration of the BBMP, the state government enacted the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, which came into effect from 11.1.2021. Section 7(3)(a) of the Act, 2020 specifies that the Government shall by order determine the wards into which the Corporation shall for the purpose of its election, be divided into not less than 225 but more than 250 wards. Section 8(2) to 8(4) of the Act, 2020 provide for reservation of seats for SC/ST, backward classes and women.
4. Since election was not conducted after expiry of the term of the councilors, the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.10216/2020 directed the State Government to publish the final notification of reservation within two weeks from 22.9.2020 and the State Election Commission was directed to hold election for councilors of BBMP within the maximum period of six weeks from the date on which final notification is published. 31
5. The order passed by the Division Bench is challenged by the State Government in SLP (Civil) No.1518/2020. Meanwhile, for effective administration of the BBMP, the State Government enacted the BBMP Act, 2020 which came into effect from 11.1.2021. Section 7 of the BBMP Act, 2020 specifies that the Government shall be ordered to determine the wards into which the Corporation shall for the purpose of its election, be divided into not less than 225, but not more than 250 wards. Section 8(2) to 8(4) of the BBMP Act, 2020 provides for reservation to SC/ST, backward classes and women.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions to complete the election process under the BBMP Act, 2020 and the election process is monitored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the notification was published for delimitation of wards in exercise of power under Section 7 of the BBMP Act, 2020, which was the subject of challenge in WP No.17438/2022 and connected matters and in the light of the order dated 17.8.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioners sought clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.8.2022 directed this Court to 32 decide the writ petitions No.17438/22 and connected matters on merits and pass interim or final orders in accordance with law.
7. The State Government constituted Dr.Justice K Bhaktavatsala Commission of Enquiry for Reservation to Other Backward Classes in Local Bodies across the State of Karnataka. The Commission after conducted an enquiry submitted a report dated 21.7.2022 that the reservation of 1/3rd of total seat in favour of OBCs in local body elections in the State of Karnataka is justifiable and the persons belonging to the minority community other than the Muslim community are not able to avail the benefit of political reservation in the local body elections. Thereafter, the State Government carried out the exercise of ward reservation on the basis of the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry and issued the impugned notification notifying the ward wise reservation for 243 wards of BBMP out of which, 81 wards are reserved for backward classes and 120 wards are reserved for women randomly. Taking exception to the same, these writ petitions have been filed.
8. Sri Jayakumar S Patil, learned Senior Counsel,, learned Senior Counsel, Sri A S Ponnanna, learned Senior 33 Counsel, Sri Sandeep S Patil, Sri K S Ponnappa and Sri Jaya Movil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would make the following submissions.
9. The reservations of 81 wards to the backward classes is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K Krishnamurthy -vs- Union of India reported in (2010) 7 SCC 202 since the triple test set down in the aforesaid decision was not followed. The impugned notification is smacked with legal and political malafides.
10. In several assembly constituencies held by the opposition parties, more or less all the wards are reserved for women and likewise in several assembly constituencies held by the ruling party, more or less there is no reservation provided for the women. Hence, the majority reservation of wards in constituencies held by the opposition parties is smacked with arbitrariness and discrimination and the women in constituencies held by the ruling party are deprived of representing the people of the said constituencies. The reservation of wards for women is confined to certain constituencies and there is no proportionate reservation of wards 34 in the constituencies which establishes the intention of the ruling party is to gain unfair advantage.
11. If this Court forms an opinion that the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry does not satisfy the triple test enumerated in the case K Krishnamurthy, the State Government be directed to provide empirical data to the Commission and after the report is formulated, the State Government may be directed to issue a notification afresh providing reservation to the Backward Classes. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Mahajan on 10.5.2022 was in the context that the term of the elected body had expired, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is monitoring the holding of election to councilors to BBMP in SLP No.15181/2020 by orders dated 20.5.2022 & 28.7.2022 on the assurance given has directed the Government to carry out the exercise of delimitation of wards and reservation of wards within a time frame. Hence, the election to the councilors of BBMP cannot be conducted without providing reservation to the Backward Classes since providing reservation to Backward Classes is a statutory requirement as specified under Section 35 8(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, though it is not a constitutional mandate.
12. In WP No.18592/2022, the petitioner is the resident of Horamavu ward and belongs to scheduled caste community and he is an aspirant to contest the election of the councilor of BBMP. The ward had a total population of 95368 and the scheduled caste population was notified to be 12171 as per 2011 census. There is no exercise undertaken after delimitation of wards to verify which among the two full and two portions the scheduled caste population had been scattered to. The reservation of seats has been done without taking into account the strength of the population in various wards and without taking into consideration the higher population of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe.
13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would make the following submissions:
a) The Commission of enquiry has formulated the report by analyzing the empirical data relating to political backwardness in the State of Karnataka. The report satisfies the triple test set down by the Hon'ble 36 Supreme Court in the case of K Krishnamurthy (supra) and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali -vs- State of Maharashtra (2021) 6 SCC 73. The State Government after accepting the report has issued the impugned notification and the same is in conformity with Article 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 8(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020.
b) The reservation of wards for women is done randomly and in the absence of any material that the majority of wards is deliberately reserved for women in the constituencies held by the opposition parties so as to give an unfair advantage to the ruling party, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the reservation of wards for women is smacked with malafides cannot be countenanced.
c) The election to the BBMP is to be held for the first time after commencement of the BBMP Act, 2020. Hence, the reservation of seats by following the rotation as specified under Article 243T of the Constitution of India and Section 8(3) & (4) of the BBMP Act, 2020 is not applicable.
d) In order to determine which of the wards out of 243 is required to be reserved in favour of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe , the ward wise population as per 2011 census was taken into consideration as per the 37 census report. The enumeration block in each of the wards which contain the population of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe has been taken into account for providing reservation to scheduled caste and schedule tribe community.
14. Section 8(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 specifies that 1/3rd of the wards should be reserved for Backward Classes by direct election. Since providing reservation to Backward Classes is a statutory requirement, the election cannot be conducted by dispensing with reservation to Backward Classes since the object of providing reservation for upliftment of politically backward classes will be defeated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 28.7.2022 passed in SLP No.15181/2020 has permitted the State Government to conduct election to the councilors of BBMP by providing reservation to politically Backward Classes and this order was passed subsequent to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.5.2022 in the case of Sunil Mahajan. The BBMP is a newly constituted body under the BBMP Act, 2020 and Article 243U of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the newly constituted Corporation.
15. On the other hand, Sri Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that in 38 the event if this Court comes to a conclusion that the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry does not satisfy the triple test enumerated in the case of K Krishnamurthy (supra) and reiterated in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawli (supra), the State Election Commission may be reserved with liberty to proceed with the election without waiting for the compliance of triple test by the State Government for providing reservation to other backward classes as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Mahajan -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) SCC Online SC 589.
16. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
17. The points that arise for consideration are follows:
i) Whether the impugned notification issued by the State Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry reserving 81 wards for other backward classes satisfies the triple test enumerated in the case of K Krishnamurthy (supra)?
ii) Whether the reservation of majority of the wards for women in the assembly constituencies held by the opposition parties is smacked with malafides?39
Reg. point No.(i):
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K Krishnamurthy (supra) at paras-55, 56 and para-82(iii) has held as follows:
"55. It must be kept in mind that there is also an inherent difference between the nature of benefits that accrue from access to education and employment on one hand and political representation at the grassroots level on the other hand. While access to higher education and public employment increases the likelihood of the socio-economic upliftment of the individual beneficiaries, participation in local self-government is intended as a more immediate measure of empowerment for the community that the elected representative belongs to.
56. The objectives of democratic decentralization are not only to bring governance closer to the people, but also to make it more participatory, inclusive and accountable to the weaker sections of society. In this sense, reservations in local self-government are intended to directly benefit the community as a whole, rather than just the elected representatives. It is for this very reason that there cannot be an exclusion of the "creamy layer" in the context of political representation. There are bound to be disparities in the socio-economic status of persons within the groups that are the intended beneficiaries of reservation policies. While the exclusion of the "creamy layer" may be feasible as well as desirable in the context of reservations for education and employment, the same principle cannot be extended to the context of local self-government.
82(iii). We are not in a position to examine the claims about over breadth in the 40 quantum of reservations provided for OBCs under the impugned State legislations since there is no contemporaneous empirical data. The onus is on the executive to conduct a rigorous investigation into the patterns of backwardness that act as barriers to political participation which are indeed quite different from the patterns of disadvantages in the matter of access to education and employment. As we have considered and decided only the constitutional validity of Articles 243-D(6) and 243-T(6), it will be open to the petitioners or any aggrieved party to challenge any State legislation enacted in pursuance of the said constitutional provisions before the High Court. WE are of the view that the identification of "backward classes" under Article 243-D(6) and Article 243-T(6) should be distinct from the identification of SEBCs for the purpose of Article 15(4) and that of backward classes for the purpose of Article 16(4)."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Kishanrao Gawali (supra) in paras-8 to 10 has held as follows:
8. On a fair reading of the exposition in the reported decision in K. Krishna Murthy case [K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India, (2010) 7 SCC 202 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 385] , what follows is that the reservation for OBCs is only a "statutory"
dispensation to be provided by the State legislations unlike the "constitutional" reservation regarding SCs/STs which is linked to the proportion of population. As regards the State legislations providing for reservation of seats in respect of OBCs, it must ensure that in no case the aggregate vertical reservation in respect of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together should exceed 50 per cent of the seats in the local bodies concerned. In case the constitutional reservation provided for SCs and STs were to consume the entire 50 per cent of seats in the local bodies concerned and in some cases in Scheduled 41 Area even beyond 50 per cent, in respect of such local bodies, the question of providing further reservation to OBCs would not arise at all. To put it differently, the quantum of reservation for OBCs ought to be local body specific and be so provisioned to ensure that it does not exceed the quantitative limitation of 50 per cent (aggregate) of vertical reservation of seats for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
9. Besides this inviolable quantitative limitation, the State Authorities are obliged to fulfil other preconditions before reserving seats for OBCs in the local bodies. The foremost requirement is to collate adequate materials or documents that could help in identification of Backward Classes for the purpose of reservation by conducting a contemporaneous rigorous empirical inquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness in the local bodies concerned through an independent dedicated Commission established for that purpose. Thus, the State legislations cannot simply provide uniform and rigid quantum of reservation of seats for OBCs in the local bodies across the State that too without a proper enquiry into the nature and implications of backwardness by an independent Commission about the imperativeness of such reservation. Further, it cannot be a static arrangement. It must be reviewed from time to time so as not to violate the principle of over breadth of such reservation (which in itself is a relative concept and is dynamic). Besides, it must be confined only to the extent it is proportionate and within the quantitative limitation as is predicated by the Constitution Bench of this Court.
10. Notably, the Constitution Bench adverted to the fact that provisions of most of the State legislations may require a relook, but left the question regarding validity thereof open with liberty to raise specific challenges thereto by pointing out flaws in the identification of the Backward Classes in reference to the empirical data. Further, the 42 Constitution Bench expressed a sanguine hope that the States concerned ought to take a fresh look at policy making with regard to reservations in local self-government in light of the said decision, whilst ensuring that such a policy adheres to the upper ceiling including by modifying their legislations--so as to reduce the quantum of the existing quotas in favour of OBCs and make it realistic and measurable on objective parameters.
20. One of the triple tests enumerated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that, it is the foremost requirement to collect empirical data for identification of backward classes for the purpose of reservation and implication of backwardness in the local body concerned through an independent dedicated commission.
21. In the instant case, the Commission of Enquiry for providing reservation to other backward classes in local body has formulated the report wherein the total population in the State of Karnataka is taken as 61095257 and the total population of minorities is taken as 9611738 (15.73%) and the population of other backward classes is taken as 17516022 (31.49%) and conclusion and suggestions of the Commission of Enquiry is as follows;
"20. CONCLUSION:43
On the basis of the above empirical date pertaining to urban and local body elections, held in the State of Karnataka, in the year 1996, 2001, 2010 and 2015, one can safely reach the conclusion that large number of castes and communities who come under the Category-A and B of other Backward Classes are still socially and politically backward. Therefore, providing reservation of 1/3rd (33%) of total seats, in favour of OBCs, (including minorities) in the urban and local body elections is justifiable.
As per Section 57 of the BBMP Act, 2020, the term of office of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor is 30 months, from the date of election. But, according to Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the term of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor is 12 months. Therefore, Section 10 of the KMC Act require to be amended.
Further, Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, provides reservation for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes, falling under the Category-A and B, to the extent of 1/3rd of the total number of offices of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, in the State of Karnataka. But, Section 58 of the BBMP Act, relating to reservation of seats, in favour of OBCs, to the office of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor is silent.
Another interesting fact to be noted is that the definition of the Backward Classes of BBMP Act, does not refer about Category-A and B of OBCs, as notified by the Urban Development Department. But, in the proviso 1, 2 and 3 of sub-section 3 of Section 8 of BBMP Act, makes a reference about Backward Classes Category-A and B. We have noticed that the list of SC/ST notified for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India is being adopted even for political reservation of seats in favour of SCs and STs 44 and there is no separate list of SCs/STs for the purpose of political reservation.
Taking into consideration that 44.40% of total population, in the State of Karnataka, belong to OBCs (including minorities), the State of Karnataka, in its Wisdom and Authority, have adopted the castes listed as Backward Classes, for the purpose of education and employment, for purpose of political reservation also, on the ground that they are socially and politically backward in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, reservation of 1/3rd (33%) of total seats, in favour of OBCs for Local Body elections, in the State of Karnataka, is based on OBCs population and empirical data. Hence, we hold that the reservation of 1/3rd (33%) of total seats in the local body elections in the State of Karnataka in favour of OBCs is justifiable.
Persons belonging to the minority community other than Muslim community are not able to avail the benefit of political reservation in local body elections. For the purpose of reservation of seats in education and employment, there is only one community under the Category-II(B) namely Muslim community which has been listed in "Backward Classes" Category-A (vide serial No.749) of the list of Backward Classes Category-A). the empirical data reveals that the Muslim Community has been given representation in the local body elections held in the year 1996, 2001, 2010 and 2015.
We are of the opinion that before the next local body elections in the State of Karnataka, in the year 2027 or 2028, the State Government may review about the re-classification of "Backward Classes"
Category-A and B, into two more Categories of "Backward Classes" for the purpose of effective reservation in favour of OBCs including minorities.
21. SUGGESTIONS:
45
In view of the total population belonging to OBCs, the empirical data and foregoing discussion, we propose to make the following suggestions:
i) To continue to provide the
policy of Political Reservation of 1/3rd
(33%) of total seats, in the ensuing
Urban and Local Bodies Elections, in favour of OBCs, as per the present classification of OBCs as "Backward Classes"
Category-A and B and the aggregate of reservation of seats in favour of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and Backward Classes shall not exceed 50% of total seats;
ii) To consider providing reservation of office of the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor in BBMP in favour of persons belonging to Other Backward Classes;
iii) To bring all Urban and Local Bodies Election wing under the control of DPAR;
iv) To consider amendment to Section 10 of the KMC Act, 1976 regarding the term of office of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for 30 months as provided in the case of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of BBMP under the BBMP Act, 2020.
v) The State Government may review about the re-classification of "Backward Classes" Category-A and B, into two more Categories of "Backward Classes", for the purpose of effective reservation in favour of OBCs including minorities, before the next local body elections that will be held in the year 2027 or 2028."46
22. The conclusion arrived by the Commission of Enquiry that 44.40% of the total population of the State of Karnataka including minorities belong to other backward classes is not based on any empirical data. The Commission was required to conduct a rigorous investigation into the pattern of the backwardness that acts as a barrier to political participation which are indeed quite different from patterns of disadvantages in the matter of access to education or employment. Such an exercise is not forthcoming from the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry nor any material is placed by the State Government that the Commission of Enquiry had conducted such an enquiry or the report was based on the empirical date furnished by the State Government . The Commission was required to find out which of the communities are backward in the local bodies across State of Karnataka on the basis of empirical data and thereafter opine that providing reservation of 33% of total seats in favour of OBCs including the minorities in the local bodies is justifiable.
23. The conclusion that large numbers of castes and communities come under the category of A and B of other backward classes and that they are still socially and politically 47 backward is alleged to be based on the data pertaining to urban and local body elections held in the State of Karnataka in the year 1996, 2001, 2010 and 2015. The conclusion that 44% of the state population consists of backward class including minorities is imaginary and the same is contrary to the triple test enumerated in the case of K Krishnamurthy (supra). Hence, I am of the view that the notification issued by the State Government providing reservation for backward classes on the basis of the report submitted by the Commission of Enquiry is contrary to the triple test set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Reg. point No.(ii):
24. There are 28 constituencies in BBMP limit out of which 15 are held by the ruling party and 13 by the opposition party. There are 145 wards in the constituencies held by the ruling party and 98 wards in the constituencies held by the opposition parties, out of which, 50 wards in the constituencies held by the ruling party are reserved for women and 70 wards in the constituencies held by the opposition parties are reserved for women. The number of wards reserved for categories other than women is 95 in constituencies held by the ruling party and 27 48 wards are reserved for categories other than women in the constituencies held by the opposition parties.
25. The ratio of wards reserved for general and women in constituencies held by the ruling party is 1:1.9 and in constituencies held by the opposition parties the ratio is 1:2.6.
26. The notification provides for reservation of majority of the wards to women in the constituencies held by the opposition parties and the majority of the wards in the constituencies held by the ruling party are reserved for categories other than women. The comparison of reservation of wards for women and categories other than women in the some of constituencies is detailed below:
Chickpet V/S Gandhi Nagar Constituency Ward Delimited Ward Total Population Name No. Name Total Total Male Total M&F Ward Population Female Difference Reservation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 171 171-Sudham 33376 17036 16340 696 SC 169-Chickpet Nagara General:- 7 172 172-Dharmaraya 30140 15647 14493 1154 General Swamy Temple Women: 0 Ward 173 173-Sunkenahalli 33429 17046 16383 663 Backward Class A 174 174- 33699 16957 16742 215 General Vishveshwara Puram 49 175 175-Ashoka Pillar 36399 18136 18263 -127 General 176 176- 36631 18762 17869 893 Backward Someshwaranagar Class-A 177 177- 30653 15733 14920 813 General Hombegowdanagara Total population 2,34,327 1,19,317 1,15,010 4,307 132 132-Dattatreya 33445 17130 16315 815 General Temple (Women) 133 133- 31208 17306 13902 3404 Class A Gandhinagar (Women) 134 134-Subhash 37693 19313 18380 933 SC 164-Gandhi Nagar (Women) Nagar 135 135-Okalipuram 38110 19481 18629 852 SC General:-0 (Women) Women: 7 136 136-Binnipete 37354 19156 18198 958 General (Women) 137 137-Cottonpete 37344 19213 18131 1082 General (Women) 138 138-Chickpete 33292 17629 15663 1966 General (Women) Total population 2,48,446 1,29,228 1,19,218 10,010 Malleswaram V/S Jayanagar & Shivajinagar constituency Name Ward Delimited Ward Total No. Name Total Total Total M&F Ward Populatio Male Female Differenc Reservation n e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 157-Malleswaram 59 59-Mattikere 37036 19134 17902 1232 60 60-Aramane 36738 19369 17369 2000 General:-6 Nagara 61 61- 34196 17527 16669 858 Women:-1 Malleswaram, 62 62-Subramapya 35709 17893 17816 77 Nagar, 50 63 63-Gayithri 33236 16934 16302 632 Nagar c 64 64-Kadu 35609 17558 18051 -493 Backward Mätteshwara Class A 65 65-Rajamahal 31061 15472 15589 -117 General.
Guttahalli (Women)
Total population 2,43,585 1,23,887 1,19,698 4,189
173- Jayanagar 194 194- 39576 20620 18956 1664 General
Gurappanapalya (Women)
General:-1 195 195-Tilak Nagar. 39839 20342 19497 845 Class B
Women)
Women:-5
196 196-Byrasandra 37834 18903 18931 -28 General
(Women)
197 197-Shakambari 38321 19509 18812 697 General
Nagar (Women)
198 198-J 1 P Nagar 38054 19369 18685 684
199 199-Sarakki 36204 18424 17780 644 General
('Women)
Total population 2,29,828 1,17,167 1,12,661 4,506
162-Shivaji Nagar 126 126- 30352 15090 15262 -172 SC
Ramaswamy (Women)
Palya
General:-1
Women:-5 127 127-Jayamahal 35795 18312 17483 829 General
Women)
128 128-Vasanth 34947 17121 17826 -705 Class A(
Nagar Women)
129 129- 35764 18127 17637 490 Class A(
Sampangiram Women)
Nagar
130 130-Bharathi 38343 19540 18803 737 Class B
Nagar
131 131-Ulsoor 36525 20317 16208 4109 SC
Total population 2,11,726 1,08,507 1,03,219 5,288
51
Other References
constituency Ward Delimited Ward Total
Name No. Name
Total Total Total M&F Ward
Population Male Female Difference Reservation
172-B T M 185 185-Ejipura 38623 20475 18148 2327 General
Layout (Women)
186 186- 31739 16047 15692 355 General
General:-1 Koramangala (Women)
187 187-Adugodi 31204 16023 15181 842 General
Women:-8 (Women)
188 188- 39819 20515 19304 1211 SC
Lakkasandra (Women)
189 189-Suddagunte 38354 20515 17839 2676 General
Palya
190 190-Madivala 33857 18894 14963 3931 General
(Women)
191 191- 33521 18009 15512 2497 General
Jakkasandra (Women)
192 192-BTM Layout 34851 18409 16442 1967 Class A
(Women)
193 193-N S Palya 36710 19746 16964 2782 Class A
(Women)
Total population 3,18,678 1,68,633 1,50,045 18,588
159- 74 74-Kaval 34183 17773 16410 1363 General
Pulakeshi Bairasandra (Women)
Nagar
75 75-Kushal Nagar 39709 20129 19580 549 Class A
(Women)
General:-1
76 76-Muneshwara 36543 18663 17880 783 Class A
Nagar (Women)
Women: 6
77 77-Devara 36372 18493 17879 614 Class A(
Jeevanahalli Women)
78 78-SK Garden 38327 19680 18647 1033 SC
(Women)
79 79- 36876 18342 18534 -192 SC
Sagayarapuram
80 80- 39428 19665 19763 -98 Class B
Pulikeshinagar (Women)
Total population 2,61,438 1,32,745 1,28,693 4,052
52
173- 194 194- 39576 20620 18956 1664 General
Jayanagar Gurappanapalya (Women)
General:-1 195 195-Tilak Nagar 39839 20342 19497 845 Class B
(Women)
Women: 5 196 196-Byrasandra 37834 18903 18931 -28 General
(Women)
197 197-Shakambari 38321 19509 18812 697 General
Nagar (Women)
198 198-J P Nagar 38054 19369 18685 684 General
199 199-Sarakki 36204 18424 17780 644 General
(Women)
Total population 2,29,828 1,17,167 1,12,661 4,506
162-Shivaji 126 126- 30352 15090 15262 -172 SC
Nagar Ramaswamy (Women)
Palya
General:-1
127 127-Jayamahal 35795 18312 17483 829 General
(Women)
Women:- 5
128 128-Vasanth 34947 17121 17826 -705 Class A
Nagar (Women)
129 129- 35764 18127 17637 490 Class A(
Sampangiram Women)
Nagar
130 130-Bharathi 38343 19540 18803 737 Class B
Nagar (Women)
131 131-Ulsoor 36525 20317 16208 4109 SC
Total population 2,11,726 1,08,507 1,03,219 5,288
27. The aforesaid details clearly indicates that the
reservation of wards for women is arbitrary, and the majority of reservation of wards for women in constituencies held by the opposition parties is deliberate though the population of the women in wards in the constituencies is on the higher side.53
28. The Government has not framed any guidelines or Rules fixing the criteria for providing reservation to women. The Government by notification 10.3.2021 has framed Rules for reservation of seats in Taluk and Zilla Panchayaths by rotation. Rule 3(k) of the Rules specifies that for reserving the seats to women from unreserved seats, the Commission shall allot or reserve the same to the constituency having the higher population of women in the total population of the constituency.
29. The Government by order dated 30.07.2022 has framed Rules with respect to the allotment of reservation to Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes by allocating the seats in the descending order with respect to wards having greater percentage of population of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, there is no criteria fixed for providing horizontal reservation to women and the Government has stated that it has adopted randomization for allotment of seats to women and backward class since the elections to BBMP after it was constituted under the BBMP Act, 2020 is to be held for the first time.
54
30. The word "random" as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary means, done or happened without any plan, purpose or regular patterns which denotes arbitrariness.
31. The object of providing reservation to women is to encourage women to participate in political issues and have equal rights to contest the election to Councilors of BBMP and a sense of equality is maintained by creating such reservations for women. The reservation of majority of the wards for women in particular constituencies will deprive the women of other constituencies having larger population of women from participating in political issues and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory. To give representation proportionally to the women in all the constituencies, it would be appropriate that the reservation of wards for women is spread out proportionally.
32. The notification providing reservation to backward classes having been held to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the Karnataka State Election Commission can be permitted to conduct election to the councilors of BBMP without reservation to backward classes. The 55 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Mahajan (supra) in its order dated 10.5.20222 at paras-12, 18 and 24 has held as follows:
"12. Therefore, we direct the State Election Commission by way of interim order, to issue election programme without any further delay on the basis of the wards as per the delimitation done in the concerned local bodies when the elections had become due consequent to expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected body or before coming into force of the impugned Amendment Act(s) whichever is later. On that notional basis, the State Election Commission ought to proceed without any exception in respect of concerned local bodies where elections are due or likely to be due in the near future without waiting even for the compliance of triple test by the State Government for providing reservation to Other Backward Classes. We have no manner of doubt that only such direction would meet the ends of justice and larger public interests consistent with the constitutional mandate that the local self-government must be governed by the duly elected representatives uninterrupted except in case of its dissolution before expiry of the term on permissible grounds.
18. To put it differently, completion of delimitation exercise or be it triple test formality, as the case may be, can wait if not completed well before the expiry of five years term of the outgoing elected body, including giving enough time to the Election Commission to complete the election process within such time. Thus, the declaration of election programme cannot be delayed by the Election Commission on that account. For, it would inevitably result in creating a hiatus situation upon expiry of 5 (five) years term of the outgoing elected body. Such an eventuality needs to be eschewed by all the duty holders. A priori, it is not only a 56 constitutional obligation of the State Election Commission but also of the State Government including of the constitutional Courts.
24. In other words, the exercise of collation of empirical data and after analysis thereof, the Commission is expected to make recommendations regarding the number of seats to be reserved for Other Backward Classes "local body wise".
Apparently, that exercise has not been undertaken by the Commission. The State Government can act upon only thereafter and as per the recommendations of the Commission - which is an independent body created to ensure that there is no over-breadth of such reservation in the "concerned local body".
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Mahajan (supra) in its order dated 18.5.2022 has held as follows:
"Further, the report of the dedicated Commission had been revised in light of the observations made by this Court. The Second (Revised) Report came to be submitted by the Commission incorporating all the requisite issues, also giving break-up of reservation for Other Backward Classes category to be provided local body wise. This report has been submitted to the State Government on 12.05.2022.
To reassure ourselves, we have gone through the reports submitted by the dedicated Commission concerned the determination of proportion of reservation to be provided for Other Backward Classes local body wise across the State of Madhya Pradesh.
For the time being, we permit the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to notify the 57 election programme for the respective local bodies keeping in mind the delimitation notifications already issued by the State Government as on this date, i.e., till today; and also the Reports submitted by the dedicated Commission, referred to above."
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.5.2022 issued a categorical direction to the State Election Commission across India to proceed with the elections in the local bodies where the elections are due or likely to be due in the near future without waiting even for the compliance of triple test by the State Government for providing reservation to other backward classes. The aforesaid direction was issued since there was no report formulated by the Commission of Enquiry for providing reservation to backward classes in the elections to the local bodies in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter , the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application for modification of the interim order dated 10.5.2022 stating that the report of the dedicated Commission has been revised in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by incorporating all the requisite issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after perusing the revised report permitted the Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission to notify the election programme of the respective local bodies keeping in mind the 58 delimitation notification already issued and also the report submitted by the dedicated Commission.
35. The direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.5.2022 was in the context that the election was due after expiry of the Body. In the present case, the BBMP was constituted under the Act, 2020 and there is no election held after commencement of the Act, 2020. The election is to be held for the first time under the Act, 2020 and in that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.15181/2020 in the case of State of Karnataka by order dated 20.5.2022 on the assurance given, permitted for delimitation of wards and for determining reservation percentage for the newly constituted Corporation within a time frame. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 28.7.2022 taking into account that the dedicated commission has submitted a report on 21.07.2022 directed the State Government to notify ward-wise reservation chart, local body wise within one week from today to facilitate the State Election Commission to initiate appropriate steps for ensuring constitution of concerned bodies.
59
36. Section 8(3) of the Act specifies that as nearly as may be 1/3rd of the total seats to be filled by a direct election to the corporation shall be reserved for persons belonging to backward classes. Though it is not a constitutional mandate , allocating of seats to backward classes is a statutory requirement and the same cannot be dispensed on the grounds of imminence of elections which would otherwise deprive them of participating in the decision making process of the BBMP. It is a settled law, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner , the same shall be done in that particular manner and not otherwise.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.15181/2020 ( State of Karnataka -vs- M Shivaraju and others) is monitoring the election process to councilors of BBMP and has not issued any direction to the state government to dispense with allocation of seats to backward classes on the ground of imminence of elections.
38. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed a copy of the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20426/2021, whereby, the time 60 granted for delimitation of constituencies and also reservation of posts to the election of Taluk and Zilla Panchayats is extended by a period of 12 weeks.
39. The learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record the affidavit filed by the Officer concerned and in the said affidavit at paragraph no.6, the State Government has sought for 16 weeks time to publish the final notification for reservation. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was constituted under the BBMP Act, 2020 with effect from 11.01.2021 and though more than one and half years has lapsed from the date of constitution of BBMP, the council has not been constituted.
40. The elections are the essence of democracy and the elections which are long over due has deprived the voters of Bengaluru City in electing their representatives, thus causing inconvenience and hardship.
For the foregoing discussion, the impugned notification issued is in contravention of the triple test enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Krishnamurthy and reiterated in the case of Kishan Gawali (supra), and imminence 61 of elections cannot be a ground to dispense with allocating seats to backward classes which is a statutory requirement.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petitions are allowed;
ii) The impugned final notification dated 16.8.2022 bearing No.UDD 102 BBS 2022, Bengaluru, issued by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department (BBMP-2) is hereby quashed;
iii) The State Government is directed to redo the exercise of providing reservation (posts) to the women for elections to the councilors of BBMP by allocating seats in the descending order with respect to wards having greater percentage of population of women.
iv) The State Government to cooperate with the dedicated commission in furnishing the empirical data so as to formulate a report and submit the same to State Government for publication of final notification. The final notification providing reservation to SC/ST, Backward Classes and Women shall be 62 published on or before 30.11.2022. The Karnataka State Election Commission to complete the election process within 30 days from the date of publication of final notification.
I hope and trust that the State Government shall make all endeavours to complete the election process on or before 31.12.2022.
For reporting compliance, list these matters on 30.11.2022.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm