rd - judgmenthck.kar.nic.injudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/793926/1/wp... · 3...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.No.44458/2012 (LB-ELE) a/w
W.P.Nos.45130/2012, 45269/2012, 45154/2012, 44975-44976/2012, 44949/2012, 44651/2012, 44621/2012, 44557/2012, 44399-44792/2012,
47974/2012, 47915/2012, 47580/2012, 47026/2012, 46573/2012, 46506/2012,
42775/2012, 44396-44397/2012, 47727/2012, 45440/2012, 45565/2012, 45602/2012, 45628/2012, 45733-45737/2012, 45993-
45994/2012, 47801-47802/2012 & 47509/2012
W.P.NO.44458/2012 BETWEEN: LAKSHMI DEVI W/O MURAGESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER, KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULAMBI VILLAGE, TALUK:HONALLI DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S.HOSAMATH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 001.
2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.
2
3 THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION K S C M F BUILDING, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 52.
4. SECRETARY KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KULAMBI VILLAGE TQ:HONALLI, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.
W.P.No.45130/2012 BETWEEN: 1. N MAHESHWARAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
2. S G DUSHYANTAPPA S/O S G CHANNABASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
3. B K VAMADEVAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA AGED 47 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
4. THIPPESWAMY NAIK S/O ONKARA NAIK AGED 51 YEARS, R/O NARENAHALLI VILLAGE,
3
JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
5. RAJU S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED 39 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
6. S K MANJUNATH S/O KARIYAPPA AGED 41 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
7. SHEKHARAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
8. C G NAGARAJ S/O GONAPPA AGED 36 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
9. CHANDRAMMA W/O MARULAPPA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
10. ASHA W/O YALLAPPA AGED 30 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
11. SHOBHA W/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, R/O MUGGIDARAGIHALLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
12. BASAMMA W/O K S REVANASIDDAPPA AGED 35 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
4
13. SHARADA BAI W/O RAJANAIK AGED 40 YEARS, R/O NARASIMHA RAJA PURA, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.
14. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED 42 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. (ALL ARE MEMBERS OF HALEKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.)
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -01.
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE-01. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE DIST., DAVANGERE-577 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. W.P.NO.45269/2012 BETWEEN: SMT K.P.RATHNAMMA W/O K.P.RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5
PRESIDENT OF TALUK PANCHAYATH OF HONNALI TALUK, R/O KULAGATTA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEP.OF PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATH RAJ) AND EX-OFFICE JOINT SECRETARY
DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH HONALLI HONALLI TALUK, DAVANGER DISTRICT-577 215. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1- 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT INSIST FOR HER RESIGNATION BEFORE EXPIRING TERM OF TWENTY MONTHS.
W.P.NO.45154/2012 BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O SRI NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT A CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
6
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY M/s S.RAJU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, K.S.C.M.F.(BACKSIDE) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 52.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.
5 KUMBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, 2 & 4 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.09.12 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST, HASSAN AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44975-44976/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SMT SARASWATHI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O AMARANARAYANA PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
7
2 SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O MAHADEV PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. .. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.GANGI REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ELECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR – 563 101. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE ANNEXURE-H DATED 09.10.12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR. W.P.NO.44949/2012 BETWEEN: S.B.ROOPA W/O SRI NANDISH AGED 26 YEARS HARANAHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR M/S ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
8
PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 3 THE TAHSILDAR
ARASIKERE TALUK ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
4 HARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARASIKERE TALUK, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERTAINS TO THE HARANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH. W.P.NO.44651/2012 BETWEEN:
SMT RENUKAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS MEMBER, JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, R/O HOUSE NO.41, VEERAVVA NAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE, JANAKAL POST, HOSADURGA TALUK -577 527. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
AND :
1 KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KSCMF BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052. REP.BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER.
9
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA -577 501. 3 THE RETURNING OFFICER
GRAMA PANCHAYATH ELECTION OF JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND THE TAHASILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G. FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
W.P.NO.44621/2012 BETWEEN: SRI G.B.PALEGOWDA S/O G.S.BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.
10
3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
4 SECRETARY
AREHALLI GRAMA PACHAYATH AREHALLI, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 & 3 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ANNEXURE-L DATED 09.10.12 MADE IN NO.ELC.CR.82-6/12-13 ISSUED BY THE R3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS AREHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AND ETC. W.P.NO.44557/2012
BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKABYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE BYLAPPA NO.169, BHYRESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMIPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 097. ... PETITIONER
(BY M/S S.B.MUKKANNAPPA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
BANGALORE DISTRICT. BANGALORE – 560 001.
11
3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KGID BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. REP.BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RESERVATION FOR SECOND TERM FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT GENERAL (L) & VICE PRESIDENT BCM (A) TO SOMASHETTIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44399-44792/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI O.G.BASAVARAJ S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MARADIDEVIGERE VILLAGE IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 2. SRI K.J.KENCHAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KALAHALLI, IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
BY ITS COMMISSIONER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
12
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 09.10.12 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON 10.10.12 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
W.P.NO.47974/2012 BETWEEN: SRI T.BALAPPA S/O AJJAGALA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MEMBER, THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH R/O THORANAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.SRIDHARA & SRI R.SHASHIDHAR, ADVS.) AND :
1 THE SECRETARY THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE – 577 501.
3 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CUNNINGUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)
13
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.
W.P.NO.47915/2012 BETWEEN: SMT GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O SRI V.SRINIVASAMURTHY MEMBER OF MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT THIRUMALENEHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 049. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.
3 MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY MANDUR POST, MANDUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 049.
4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
No.8, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)
14
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
W.P.NO.47580/2012 BETWEEN: Sri M.K.LAKSHMAN NAIK S/O KALA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O ALAGHATTA LAMBANI TANDA BALLALA SAMUNDRA VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-587333. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 597 333.
4 THE SECRETARY
BALLALA SAMUNDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 597 333.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2)
15
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
W.P.NO.47026/2012 BETWEEN: H.D.KRISHNAPPA S/O DYAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HANIYURU VILLAGE DODDATUMKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 561 203. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
3 SONNENAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 COMMISSIONER
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.2012 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
16
W.P.NO.46573/2012 BETWEEN:
MR.KUNDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE ARAVAPPA R/AT KATANAYAKANAPURA VIDYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001.
3 H.GOLLAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK DISTRICT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
4 COMMISSIONER
STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
W.P.NO.46506/2012 BETWEEN: SRI S.OMKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SABALADA GIDDAPPA @ HANUMAPPA
17
R/O THOPURU MALIGE VILLAGE & POST – 577 524. CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.K.VASANTH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA 577 501.
2 THE DYAMMAVVANAHALLY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DYAMAVVANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. REP.BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY.
3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR RECORDS No.ELEC.CR.82-3/12-13 DATED 09.10.12 ON THE FILE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT AND ETC.
W.P.NO.42775/2012 BETWEEN: SRI D M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MALLESHAPPA .M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT DUMMI, 1ST BLOCK, DUMMI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI L.SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.)
18
AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501.
3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
W.P.Nos.44396-44397/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SRI D.R.BASAVARAJ S/O D.S.RAJASEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/OF HIREHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 2 SRI M.B.MUDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O CHIKKAHALLI, BYADAREDDIHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
19
Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
W.P.No.47727/2012 BETWEEN: SRINIVASA M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 38 YEARS LAXMI SAGARA VILLAGE NERALURU POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUMANA BALIGA.M. ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 KARNATAKA STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2)
THIIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
20
W.P.No.45440/2012 BETWEEN : 1. R RAVINDRA
S/O M.V. MUNIYAPPA AGED 49 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF N. HOSAHALLI BAYALA NARASAPURA POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562 114 2. H N DHARMESH S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED 43 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF KONDARAHALLI NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 114 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
K.C.M.F. BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER
21
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOCATION / RESERVATION OF ADHYAKSHA IN FAVOUR OF GENERAL LADY IN RESPECT OF NANDAGUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 12.10.2012.
W.P.No.45565/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O JOGISIDDAIAH AGED 40 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER NO.205, HANCHYA VILLAGE RAMMANAHALLI POST MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
OF KARNATAKA CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL..AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE
22
R2, VIDE ANN-C INSOFAR AS THE ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION TO THE POST OF PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT OF HANCHYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN MYSORE TALUK.
W.P.No.45602/2012 BETWEEN : H.C. JAGADISH S/O H CHANNAPPA AGE:43 YEARS R/O PALLAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK DAVANGERE DIST. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR & SRI C SHIVAKUMAR, ADVS.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE-577 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R3, INSOFAR AS RESERVING THE POST OF ADHYAKSHA OF PALLAGATTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.
23
W.P.No.45628/2012 BETWEEN : SRI C.S. BYRAJU S/O SANNAKALAIAH AGED 47 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER CHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA
CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANX-B INSOFAR AS ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION OF THE POST OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ICHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN HOLENARASIPURA TALUK.
W.P.Nos.45733-45737/2012 BETWEEN : 1. SRI S T CHANDREGOWDA
S/O S S THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O SIRAGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST,
24
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.
2. SRI. D S LAKSHMANA S/O SHANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O DUMMIGERE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.
3. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O JAYAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAMMADHALLI MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.
4. SRI. ANAND S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KESUVINAMANE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101
5. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SATHEESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SIRANGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY M/S. A SHIVARAMA & ASSTS., ADVS.)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR DIST., CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.
25
3. THE SECRETARY MUGATHIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALDUR, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R2 DATED 17.10.12 VIDE ANNX-L SOFAR AS R3 GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED & DIRECT THE R2 TO MODIFY THE LIST DATED 17.10.12 ANNX-L IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW U/S 44 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT 1993 AND RULE 4 TO APPENDIX VIII OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ RULES AS PER DIRECTIONS/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ETC., W.P.Nos.45993-45994/2012 BETWEEN :
1. H K PRAKASH S/O GIRIBASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHIKKADANA HALLI MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DIST
2. R KUMAR S/O RAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NOVA BETHANIA S, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001
26
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570 005
3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL..A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM DIST. COMMISSIONER MYSORE, PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER & QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C & ANNEXURE TO IT DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C1 PASSED BY THE R2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO MANUGANANHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 & 243-D OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
W.P.Nos.47801-47802/2012 BETWEEN :
1. K NARAYANAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577516
2. H BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O REVANAPPA, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577516 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADV.)
27
AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 501
2. THE TAHSILDAR
HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 503
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
4. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.10.12, GAZETTED ON 16.10.12 ISSUED BY R1 RESERVING THE POST OF ADYAKSHA FOR BHANUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF BACKWARD CLASS-A (WOMAN) VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.
W.P.No.47509/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER GRAMA PANCHAYATH HULIKATTE, RESIDING AT KAREYAGALA VILLAGE DAVANEGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY M/S L SRINIVAS BABU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
28
AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHARAJ M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANEGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-575 205
3. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANN-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESERVE THE POST OF PRESIDENT IN FAVOUR OF “SCH TRIBE (WOMEN)”.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R
The petitioners in all these petitions are assailing
the reservations and the allocation of seats to different
categories for the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha
in the ensuing elections to the Grama Panchayat. In
this regard, the reservations have been made to the
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and the BCM
category of which 80% has been reserved for BCM-A
29
and 20% to BCM-B. The remaining posts are allocated
for general category. Among the said categories, there is
vertical reservation of 50% of the posts in all categories
for women which is as per the requirement.
2. The grievance of the petitioners however is
based on the allegation of improper rotation and
allocation for the different categories which has been
effected by the notifications issued by the Deputy
Commissioners impugned in the respective cases. The
case put forth is that the reservation and rotations are
to be made as provided under Section 44 (2) of the
Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short).
The proviso to the said section provides that the offices
reserved shall be allotted by rotations of the reserved
offices to the different Grama Panchayats for the posts
to Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha when the same are
allotted. It is therefore contended that in the impugned
notifications, reservations and allotment made to the
different Grama Panchayats would indicate that there
are repetitions of categories presently allotted as
compared to the earlier elections and therefore, the
30
requirement in the proviso has not been adhered to.
For instance, the grievance in W.P.No.44458/2012 is
that the petitioner is the member of Kulambi Grama
Panchayath, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District and
belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category. It is his case
that the reservation has not been made from 1993
onwards. The petitioner in the other petitions have
comparable grievance that the category to which they
belong has not been allotted presently and it is alleged
that the other categories are being repeated.
3. While opposing the contentions put forth in
these petitions, the respondents though have filed
objection statements in few of the writ petitions, more
particularly in W.P.No.44458/2012, apart from
justifying the notification therein that there are only two
ST seats reserved in the entire Honnali Taluk which has
to be rotated among 47 Grama Panchayats of that Taluk
and therefore, such representation would not be
possible, have further contended in all the petitions that
there is a bar contemplated under Article 243-O of the
Constitution against entertaining the instant petitions
31
and therefore the petitions should be dismissed on that
count. It is also the contention that even otherwise, the
law is well settled that in election matters, this Court
while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution should be slow in interfering with the
notifications since the same would ultimately delay the
process of elections, if such petitions are entertained.
In the instant case, considering that large number of
Grama Panchayats are there in each Taluk, any change
effected even in one panchayath would have cascading
effect and would hamper the process of election.
4. In that view, the said question require
consideration at the outset, even before adverting to the
particular instances which have been raised in the
instant petitions to contend that there has been
repetitions or non-representation while reserving the
posts.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-
32
State and Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned counsel for the
State Election Commission and perused the papers.
6. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate
General has made reference to the provisions contained
in Article 243-O of the Constitution which reads as
hereunder:
“243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters:-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-
(a) the validity of any law relating to the
delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be
called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.”
7. In that light, the learned Additional Advocate
General would rely on the decision rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner
vs. Smt.Latha & ors (W.A.No.3065/2010 and
33
connected appeals disposed of on 28.09.2010) to
which I was a member to contend that the objection
raised to oppose the writ petition in that case by relying
on Article 243-O was held justified. It is further pointed
out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar (AIR
2000 SC 2979) has held that this Court will not
interfere with the election process.
8. Having noticed the provision contained in
Article 243-O of the Constitution, it is also to be noticed
that in the instant case, the election notification has not
yet been issued and the calendar of events is not
declared nor is it a situation of challenging any election
already held. Furthermore, the petitioners are not
assailing any law relating to elections as stated in
Article 243-O (a). Therefore, the provision as contained
in Article 243-O would indicate that the bar as
contended would not apply in the instant case.
However, since the decision in the case of Smt. Latha
& Ors (supra) has been relied on by the learned
Additional Advocate General, another decision of the
34
same Division Bench of this Court to which also I was a
member requires to be referred to. In that decision in
the case of Karnataka State Election Commission vs.
G.Sannappa and others (2011(1) AIR Kar 820) the
Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“6. We have given our thoughtful consideration
to the first submission of the learned Counsel
for the appellant. The bar to interference by
Courts in electoral matters under Articles 243-O
of the Constitution of India, can be divided into
two parts. The bar under the first part (under
clause (a) of the said Article) pertains to a
challenge prior to the actual process of election,
whereas, the bar under the second part (under
clause (b) of the said Article), pertains to a
challenge on the culmination of the election
process. In so far as the present controversy is
concerned, the claim raised by respondent being
before the commencement of the electoral
process, it can fall only under the first part
referred to above, i.e., within the ambit of Article
243-O(a).
7. A closer examination of Article 243-O (a)
reveals, that the bar contemplated under Article
243-O of the Constitution of India, pertains to a
challenge to a legal provision/legislative
enactment relating to delimitation of
constituencies, or alternatively, the validity of
35
any law relating to the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made or purporting to be made
under Article 243K of the Constitution of India.
In so far as the controversy before us is
concerned, the same does not fall in any of the
aforesaid two classifications, and as such, must
for all intentions and purposes be considered to
be beyond the scope and purview of Article 243-
O (a) of the Constitution of India. We, therefore,
find no merit in the first submission advanced at
the hands of the learned counsel for the
appellant.”
9. It would therefore be clear that the Division
Bench has held that in the circumstance where the
notification relating to the rotation of reserved posts has
been challenged before the issue of notification for
election, the bar would not apply. In that view, the
decision in the case of Smt. Latha and others (supra)
relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General
would not be of assistance since the Division Bench by
the subsequent order dated 03.12.2010 by making
detailed reference to Article 243-O (a) and (b) has held
that it would not act as a bar. The subsequent decision
of the Division Bench would therefore be more apt. The
36
decision in the case of Ashok Kumar would not be
relevant insofar as considering the question of bar as
contemplated under Article 243-O though it could be
relevant for the second part of consideration by this
Court which would be made herein subsequently.
10. Therefore, keeping the said aspects in view
and considering the fact that in the instant case the
petitioners have approached this Court before the issue
of notification for the elections by only assailing the
notification made towards the reservation for the posts
of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to different Grama
Panchayats, it would not fall in the purview of the
circumstance indicated in Article 243-O of the
Constitution. Therefore, the bar as contemplated under
Article 243-O as contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General would not apply to the instant facts in
these case.
11. Though I have arrived at the above conclusion,
it still needs to be considered as to whether the
examination of each of the cases on the merits of the
37
contentions raised therein would result in interference
with the election process so as to hamper with the
progress of election. In such circumstance, whether
this Court should refrain from exercising the discretion
available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
also needs consideration.
12. In that regard, no doubt the learned counsel
for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in
the case of N.Kotresh vs. The State of Karnataka
and ors (W.P.No.5873/2011 and connected petitions
disposed of on 14.02.2011) and in the case of
Doddanarasimha Reddy vs. The Secretary,
Karnataka State Election Commission and ors ( ILR
1999 Kar 2831) to contend that in similar
circumstance this Court has interfered with the
notifications relating to reservation and rotation of posts
and as such there should be no impediment in the
instant cases also. The case of Narayanamma vs. The
State of Karnataka and ors (ILR 2005 Kar 2051) is
relied to point out that when there is repetition of the
38
reservations, this Court has held that the reserved posts
are to be rotated and cannot be repeated.
13. First and foremost, there can be no dispute
with regard to the fact that the reservations and rotation
is to be made as contemplated under Section 44(2) of
the Act. The provision contained in Section 44 (2) is as
hereunder.
“44. Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.-(1) Every Grama Panchayat Shall, [within one month from the date of publication of names of elected members under sub-section (8) of Section 5], [or immediately before the expiry of term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha] choose two members of the Grama Panchayat to be respectively, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. In the event of occurrence of any vacancy by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise in the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the Grama Panchayat shall choose another member to be the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha, as the case may be. (2) Subject to the general or special order of the [state Election Commission], the Deputy Commissioner shall reserve.- (a) such number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats in the State for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of the offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State.
39
[x x x x x]
(b) such number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyakshas of the Grama Panchayats, which shall as nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the State for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes: [“But the number of offices of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas reserved for the backward classes under this clause shall be so determined, that the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes under the clause (a) and the Backward classes under this clause shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayats in the State.”] [Provided that out of the offices reserved under this clause eighty percent of the total number of such offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘A’ and the remaining twenty percent of the offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘B’:
Provided further that if no person falling under category ‘A’ is available, the offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category ‘B’ and vice versa],
(c) not less than [fifty percent] of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats in the State from each of the categories which are reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and of those which are non-reserved, for women: Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation to different Grama Panchayats; Explanation.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for
40
purposes of reservation of offices under this section shall commence from the first election to be held after the commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.”
14. Therefore, keeping the said provisions in view,
the Election Commission has issued the notification
dated 05.09.2012 indicating the guidelines with regard
to the reservation and rotations to be provided and
effected in respect of the entire State. The number of
the reserved posts to be rotated in the Grama
Panchayats of each Taluk is also prescribed therein.
Based on the said guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner
would have to make the notification which has been
presently made in respect of the different panchayaths
in each Taluk and it is such notification which has been
impugned herein. If this aspect of the matter is kept in
view, at this stage, it is seen that the guidelines are
provided by the Election Commission and by the
subsequent notification by the Deputy Commissioner
the allocations are made. Whether that would call for
interference is the question ? No doubt, in the
circumstance which arose in the cases cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had
41
interfered with the notifications which had been issued
therein when it was found that the reservation made
and rotated was not in order. At the same time, it is
also to be noticed that in the case of Narayanamma,
though this Court had laid down that there should be
rotation with regard to the posts, this Court did not
however choose to quash the notification instead it was
held that in any event the petitioner therein could have
contested from the general category. Therefore, it is
clear that this Court would have to keep the overall
circumstance in the background of the factual matrix
and consider to what extent this Court should exercise
its discretion.
15. It is in that light, the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar referred
supra becomes relevant to consider the circumstances
in which this Court should exercise its discretion to
interfere. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
“32. For convenience sake we would now
generally sum up our conclusions by partly
42
restating what the two Constitution Benches
have already said and then adding by clarifying
what follows therefrom in view of the analysis
made by us hereinabove:-
1) If an election, (the term ‘election’ being
widely interpreted so as to include all steps and
entire proceedings commencing from the date of
notification of election till the date of declaration
of result) is to be called in question and which
questioning may have the effect of interrupting,
obstructing or protracting the election
proceedings in any manner, the invoking of
judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the
completing of proceedings in elections.
2) Any decision sought and rendered will
not amount to “calling in question an election” if
it subserves the progress of the election and
facilitates the completion of the election.
Anything done towards completing or in
furtherance of the election proceedings cannot
be described as questioning the election.
3) Subject to the above, the action taken
or orders issued by Election Commission are
open to judicial review on the well-settled
parameters which enable judicial review of
decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case
of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being
made out or the statutory body being shown to
have acted in breach of law.
43
4) Without interrupting, obstructing or
delaying the progress of the election
proceedings, judicial intervention is available if
assistance of the Court has been sought for
merely to correct or smoothen the progress of
the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles
therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if
the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered
irretrievable by the time the results are declared
and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of
the Court.
5) The Court must be very circumspect
and act with caution while entertaining any
election dispute though not hit by the bar of
Article 329(b) but brought to it during the
pendency of election proceedings. The Court
must guard against any attempt at retarding,
interrupting, protracting or stalling of the
election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see
that there is no attempt to utilise the court’s
indulgence by filing a petition outwardly
innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or
pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end.
Needless to say that in the very nature of the
things the Court would act with reluctance and
shall not act except on a clear and strong case
for its intervention having been made out by
raising the pleas with particulars and precision
and supporting the same by necessary material.”
44
16. The guidelines laid down will clearly indicate
that though there may not be a bar in law, yet the Court
must be very circumspect while considering election
matters and judicial intervention should be made only
to smoothen the progress of election proceedings and it
should not interrupt, obstruct or delay the progress of
election proceedings.
17. In fact the guidelines which have been
indicated therein and referred to by a learned Judge of
this Court in the case of Manikreddy & Others
(W.P.No.83134-83137/2010 and connected matters
disposed of on 18.08.2010) has been pressed into
service by the learned Additional Advocate General.
This Court on referring to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was of the view that though the
notifications relating to reservation and rotation which
had been challenged could be interfered, that would
interfere with the election process and as such the
Court should be slow to entertain the petitions.
45
18. Further, the learned Additional Advocate
General has brought to the notice of this Court that
another learned Judge of this Court while considering
the challenge to the notifications making similar
reservations and rotations during the current year in
respect of the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha for
Taluk Panchayats in the case of T.S. Krishnappa and
Others –vs- State (W.P.Nos.41556-41557/2012 and
connected petitions) disposed of on 23.11.2012 was
of the view that this Court would not interfere with the
said notifications. While holding so, this Court has also
taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami vs.
Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency,
Namakkal, Salem District and ors (AIR 1952 SC
64). The learned Judge had also taken note of the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on
22.11.2012 indicating the manner in which the
transparency would be maintained in future by giving
opportunity to the parties who may be aggrieved by
46
such notifications. The relevant portion of the affidavit
which has been extracted reads as hereunder:
“I say that in order to maintain
transparency in giving an opportunity to the
parties aggrieved by he notification, notifying the
reservation of seats, such notification will be
published well in advance i.e., atleast 45 days
before the expiry of term of office of the
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk
Panchayaths.
I say that Section 138 of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj Act provides reservation for the
offices of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of
Taluk Panchayats.
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 14.02.2011 passed by Hon’ble Court
in W.P.No.5873/2011 and connected writ
47
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.
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.”
19. Therefore, keeping in view the position of law
and the fact situation herein, it has to be considered by
this Court as to whether in the present circumstance
this Court should interfere with the notifications.
20. First and foremost, as noticed, in respect of
the reservation of posts for Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha in the Taluk Panchayats, this Court while
considering the similar grievances was of the view that
the same does not call for interference. Secondly, in the
instant facts, it is seen that the elections to be held to
48
the post of Adyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama
Panchayat is in respect of 5628 Grama Panchayats.
The said Grama Panchayats are spread over 30 Districts
of the State and the total number of Grama Panchayats
in a Taluk are taken into consideration for the purpose
of reserving and rotating the posts among the Grama
Panchayats in the Taluk. For instance, in Bangalore
North Taluk alone, there are 30 Grama Panchayats
regarding which the number of posts to be reserved
have been indicated in the guidelines of the Election
Commission so as to provide the seats for Scheduled
Castes-8, Scheduled Tribe-1, BCM ‘A’ -5, BCM ‘B’-1 and
the general seats-15. Further, the reservation for the
women candidates among them is shown at 50%. The
number of such Grama Panchayats varies from 7 being
the least and 65 being the most number of Grama
Panchayats in a Taluk. Therefore, in such
circumstance, when large number of Grama Panchayats
are to elect the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and a
clear guideline has been issued by the Election
Commission and the notifications have thereafter been
49
issued by the Deputy Commissioners in this regard, at
this stage, even though the elections have not been
notified to all the Grama Panchayats, the grievance put
forth by the petitioners herein if examined and
ultimately the concerned Deputy Commissioners were to
be directed to issue fresh notification rectifying the
errors if any, the same would have to be redone by
looking into the reservations which have been made in
respect of all the Grama Panchayats in the Taluk, as
otherwise the displacement of the present reservation
and rotation is likely to cause imbalance in the
allocation of reservation and rotations which have
already been made in respect of the other Grama
Panchayats in the same Taluk. That in turn is likely to
give rise to fresh grievance to the members of the other
Grama Panchayath, which would remain a vicious
circle.
21. Therefore, the instant reservations which have
been made by the Deputy Commissioners in the
impugned notifications by relying on the guidelines
which has been issued by the State Election
50
Commission in my view cannot be scrutinized in the
writ proceedings in the nature of a fact finding exercise
so as to examine whether the rotation has been done
with mathematical precision in the manner where there
is no repetition at all in any of the Grama Panchayats.
Furthermore, there is no scope for a roving enquiry to
be made in a writ proceeding, more particularly in a
circumstance where the election process is at a stage
where the Adhyaksha and Upadhyakshas are being
elected for the 10th time after the commencement of the
process in the year 1993. Therefore, when such
rotations are being effected, there would be repetitions
to certain of the posts keeping in view the number of
posts reserved, in relation to the number of Grama
Panchayats among which it is to be rotated. Hence, any
interference at this stage by this Court would prevent
the elections being held as per schedule and further, if
interference is made, it will lead to challenge by the
members of the other Grama Panchayath who may not
be satisfied with the change made as stated above and
there can be no possibility of concluding the elections in
51
the near future. Therefore, considering these aspects of
the matter, I am of the opinion that the present cases do
not call for exercise of discretion to entertain the writ
petitions, more particularly when the petitioners in any
event if aggrieved, can avail their alternate remedy after
the elections. Moreso in the present circumstance, if
such exercise is undertaken by this Court, when the
earlier period of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha has come
to an end, any order to be passed by this Court to
modify the notifications or redo the process would only
delay the electoral process and such interference has
been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. Before parting, the reference made by the
learned Additional Advocate General to the provisions
contained in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Gramapanchayat Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha)
Elections Rules, 1995 whereunder the election petitions
could be instituted is also to be noticed. In that regard,
an election petition to be presented under Rule 14
would certainly include the challenge to the election of
the elected Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may
52
be, if such challenge is laid on the ground that the
petitioners who were entitled to contest based on
appropriate reservation/rotation have been denied such
opportunity. The said contention will be a ground to be
examined in the election petition in individual cases.
Therefore, the right of the petitioners in any event would
not be defeated.
23. One other contentions raised by the learned
counsel on behalf of some of the petitioners seeking
intervention of the Court is that there being no appeal
against the manner of reservations being made by the
notifications, the reservation and rotation made thereof
by the Deputy Commissioners even if arbitrary would
remain unchallenged. In this regard, first and foremost
the same would be available for challenge in an election
petition has been noticed. Even otherwise, during the
earlier part of this order, this Court has noticed and
extracted the affidavit undertaking which had been filed
on behalf of the State Government in the case relating
to the Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyakha to the
Taluk Panchayats. To allay the apprehensions of the
53
petitioners in that regard in future, a direction is issued
to the State Government to adopt the same procedure
as undertaken to be done in respect of the elections
relating to Taluk Panchayats while notifying the
reservation/rotation in respect of the elections of
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha posts in the Grama
Panchayats as well. Hence, the said affidavit
undertaking is treated as an undertaking in this regard
also to which the State Government shall remain
bound.
24. Keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the
opinion that the instant petitions do not call for further
examination and they are accordingly disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy
in accordance with law. No Costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
akc/bms