Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Rotation of Reservation in T S Krishnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 November, 2012Matching Fragments
12. It is clear from the materials on record that out of 176 local bodies, elections to 160 local bodies have already been conducted. This Court in N.KOTRESH's case (supra) has directed to set right the rotation of reservation prospectively. But the learned Additional Advocate General's contention is that the Act itself has to be amended in view of certain developments that have taken place which has a bearing on the reservation of rotation of seats. The affidavit filed on 22.11.2012 is as under:
5. I say that certain developments have taken place which have bearing on the reservation and rotation of seats to be notified by the State i.e. (i) change in number of Districts; (ii) change in number of Taluks; (iii) declaration of population figures from time to time; (iv) change in SC/ST ranking of taluks; (v) amendment to Section 138 of the said Act, making reservation in favour of women from 33% to 50%; (vi) the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Krishnamurthy's case reported in 2010, Section 202 and also the order dated 14.2.2011 passed by Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.5873/2011 and connected writ petitions; (vii) effect of striking down of proviso to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation to the Offices of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayaths) Rules, 2005 and (viii) amendment to 2005 Rules, making State as an unit for the purpose of rotating the reservation of seats to the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
6. In view of these factors and also various other factors viz., the cascading effect of various actions committed earlier or of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, it is practically impossible to make reservation with mathematical precision or accuracy."
13. If the State is directed to redo the reservation of rotation at this stage, it will have a cascading effect as the election to 160 local bodies out of 176 local bodies have already been over. Therefore, keeping in view the law declared by this Court in N.P. PONNUSWAMI VS. RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL CONSTITUTENCY, NAMAKKAL, SALEM DISTRICT AND OTHERS - AIR 1952 SC 64, this Court cannot interfere with the notifications at this stage. Petitioners have to avail the alternative remedy available to them in law for challenging the election. It should also to be noted here that having regard to the various factors, it may not be possible to make reservation with mathematical precision and accuracy. As long as there are legitimate considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation allowing some flexibility in the joints is permissible. In this connection, it is beneficial to notice the observations of this Court in SMT. REKHA PARASHURAM KATTIMANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RDPR DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS -
ILR 2009 KAR 3656, which is as under:
"34. Reservation of seats to the 29 Zilla Panchayaths is not the subject matter in these petitions, but its rotation to the office of Chairpersons, being Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the 29 Zilla Panchayaths.
Applying the aforesaid principle that the provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation as necessarily being a broad, general and logical principle and the inherit systematic deficiencies, and not intended to be expressed in mathematical precision, and not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India, it cannot be said that rotation of the reservation too should be effected by mathematical precision. As observed supra, accommodations and adjustments having regard to political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply the justification for deviation, to some extent, in the matter of rotation while ensuring as far as may be no repetition. The differing in criteria, and the increase in the number of Districts, supra, do not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy. So long as there are legitimate considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation, allowing some "flexibility in the joints", in my opinion, is permissible. I say so, also, keeping in mind the fact that census of backward classes, is unavailable and hence there is neither criteria, or foundation for rotating the reservations to the Chairpersons, for the said class. The suggested criteria such as alphabetical order of the names of the different District; reckoning the population figures by excluding the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe; and drawing of lots, to provide reservation by way of rotation to Backward classes, I am afraid none pass the test of rationality of reasonableness to qualify acceptance."