Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

II. FACTS OF THE CASES

6. The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging different notifications of delimitation of wards issued by the State Government on the basis of 2011 census figures in respect of Mysuru City and Tumakuru City Municipal Corporations, declaring 65 wards at Mysuru and 35 wards at Tumakuru. In W.P No.32989/2018, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notification dated 23.04.2018 issued by the first respondent insofar as not determining the layouts which have been handed over by the 4th respondent - Mysuru Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short), more particularly not determining Preethi and Sai layouts in the impugned notification for any of the wards to the election for the office of councilors in the 3rd respondent - Mysuru City Corporation and for directing the 1st respondent - State Government to determine the layouts which have been handed over by the 4th respondent - MUDA as per the Official Memorandum dated 15.7.2016, more particularly Preethi an Sai layouts in any of the wards as required under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short).

7. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. No.30543- 30545/2018 that in respect of delimitation of wards, no rules were framed as mandated under Section 21(3) of the KMC Act. However, in respect of urban local bodies, the Government has formulated various guidelines. Guideline No.9 clearly and categorically states that all wards shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be had to the physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience. Further Guideline No.15 clearly and categorically states that the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts shall prepare delimitation proposals and furnish such proposals to the Government for publishing the draft notification. It is further stated that the first respondent - State Government, Urban Development Department has drawn the proceedings on 15.2.2014 with respect to delimitation of wards of urban local bodies in terms of Sections 13 and 352(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The MUDA has formed various new layouts and has approved various private layouts. As a result of the same, MUDA handed over various layouts to the 3rd respondent - Mysuru City Corporation on 15.7.2016. Accordingly on 3.11.2016, the Respondent No.1 issued a Circular regarding delimitation of wards. It is submitted that the election to the Respondent No.3 is due to be held in September-2018. In view of impending elections, Respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 8.2.2018 calling for objections from the general public within 15 days from the date of publication delimiting 65 wards. The petitioners and one Mr.Sundarkumar, the President of Devaraj Block Congress Committee, Mysuru City filed objections to draft notification stating that delimitation was not in conformity with the Act. On 14.6.2018 the Karnataka State Election Commission filed Public Interest Litigation in W.P. No.5697/2018 before this Court and sought for direction to the State Government to issue final notification of delimitation of wards and in the said writ petition, joint memo was filed by the State Election Commission as well as the State Government stating that final notification would be issued by 12.7.2018. Accordingly on 19.6.2018 Respondent No.1 issued notification notifying reservation of seats to 65 wards of the Respondent No.3 - Mysuru City Corporation. Therefore present writ petitions are filed for the reliefs sought for.

9. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos.32989/2018 & 32990-32991/2018 that in the year 2007, the developers in pursuance of layout plan approval given by respondent - MUDA has formed layout in accordance with layout plan and had sold respective sites to purchasers. However, the said layout has been looked after by MUDA and further for the purpose of elections, the said layout comes under Grama Panchayath jurisdiction as it was part of Chamundeshwari Legislative Assembly Constituency. The respondent - MUDA in pursuance of fully development of certain layouts as the said layouts come well within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysuru City Corporation, has taken decision to hand over said layouts to the respondent - Corporation on 30.6.2016. Accordingly on 15.7.2016, the Respondent - MUDA has issued Official Memorandum indicating that for the lands which have been transferred or handed over to the respondent Corporation, issuance of katha and plan sanctions have to be made by respondent - Corporation. When things stood thus, Respondent No.1 issued draft notification notifying schedules for the determination of wards for the elections to the Councilors of the respondent - Corporation on 8.2.2018. Accordingly Respondent No.1 issued final notification on 23.4.2018 determining wards, in which petitioners layouts were not included in any of the wards. The petitioners have filed objections seeking to include the said layouts in the territorial jurisdiction of ward Nos. 64 and 65. But, the same has not been done. Hence the petitioners are before this court for the relief sought for.

50. The population within the Mysuru City Corporation limits as per 2011 census document is 8,93,062 and the population of Mysuru including the outer growth is 9,20,550 as per 2011 census. Outer growth area includes the layouts that are being developed by MUDA and others which is approved by MUDA. The population has been divided and distributed to different wards following the Government guidelines and a perusal of table as per Anenxure-R4 depicts the population in the earlier delimitation of wards and the present delimitation of wards. While preparing the delimitation, the Corporation has followed enumerated blocks as identified by census. A perusal of the process of the delimitation to one of the wards would reveal laborious process undertaken by the Corporation. Therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that the delimitation of wards is not practicable as contemplated in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the KMC Act, cannot be accepted.