Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides they are heard finally.

2. Writ Appeal No.200250/2016 is preferred by the State, while Writ Appeal No.200098/2016 is preferred by Smt.Mallamma W/o Mallanna respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.200709/2016.

3. These appeals have been filed, assailing order dated 22.03.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court.

4. Briefly stated, the facts are that, the writ petitioner had assailed notification dated 24.02.2016 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) under which inter alia, the Office of President of the Urban Local Body namely, Town Municipal Council, Jewargi has been reserved for BCB-Woman. The Office of Vice- President has been reserved for Scheduled Caste woman. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition was that having regard to proviso to Rule 13(5) of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for the sake of brevity), both the Offices of the President and Vice-President could not have been reserved for women. That in the instant case, the post of Vice-President reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman and the post of President is reserved for BCB-Woman. The said writ petition was opposed by the State as well as by the private respondents. Learned Single Judge on noticing Rule 13(5) and its proviso observed that the State Government may take a decision with regard to the deletion of the proviso so that reservation of the Office of the President for a woman along with that of Vice- President simultaneously would become permissible. In the instant case, there being a legal lacuna as both the offices of President and Vice-President of the Town Municipal Council being reserved for women, learned single Judge reasoned that so long as said proviso was on the statute book both the offices of the President and Vice-President could not have been reserved for women in so far as the Town Municipal Council, Jewargi, is concerned. Learned single Judge, consequently, allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification insofar as it was impugned in the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order the State and respondent No.5 in the writ petition have preferred these writ appeals.

7. During the course of submission our attention has been drawn to the order passed by this court (Dharwad Bench) by one of us (Nagarathna J.) in the case of T. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2015(2) AKR 729 to contend that the very provisions namely proviso to Rule 13(5) and Rule 13-A(3) of the Rules which are the subject matter of controversy in these writ appeals had come up for consideration in the aforesaid writ petition and this court struck down the proviso to Rule 13(5) as well as Rule 13-A (3) when it considered the Rules concerning reservation of Offices of the President and Vice- President of the Town Panchayat, Kudligi, which was made under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is contended at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the proviso being struck down in the case of T.Venkatesh, the petitioner herein could no longer place reliance on the said proviso so as to assail notification at Annexure-C, dated 24/2/2016, in the instant case. Therefore, they submitted that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge may be set aside and modified in terms of the order passed in the case of T.Venkatesh. Learned counsel further brought to our notice that in the case of T.Venkatesh reference has been made to an earlier order of this court dated 14/02/2011, passed in W.P.No.5873/2001, by the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, by one of us (Nagarathna J.) which concerned reservation of the offices of the President and Vice-President in Zilla Panchayat and the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha,Zilla Panchayat)Rules 2005, came up for consideration and an identical proviso in the said Rule was also struck down.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner has submitted that so long as proviso to Rule 13(5) and Rule 13-A(5) remain on the statute book, the State is bound to give effect to that proviso and that Annexure-C notification issued in the instant case being contrary to the said proviso, the order of the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference. It is submitted that the writ appeals are without merit and same may be dismissed.

Government. Therefore, these two provisions proviso to Clause (d) and (e) which restrict the mandate reservations that is provided with regard to for women, the post of Chairpersons are struck down as being unreasonable arbitrary and thus contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the reservations for the posts of women is not in accordance with law is answered as aforesaid." In that case also, a similar challenge was made, whereby the reservation made in respect of the Offices of President and Vice-President of Town Panchayat, Kudligi, was challenged when notification dated 23/08/2013 was issued reserving both the aforesaid offices for women simultaneously. Though there was no specific challenge made to proviso to Rule 13(5) or Rule 13-A (3) raised by the respondents in that matter, this court by following the decision dated 14/02/2011 struck down the proviso to Rule 13(5) and consequently, dismissed the writ petitions.