Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 498 (KAR)

B. M. Rajashekariah v. State of Karnataka

2004-08-04

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2004
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.--Petitioners claim that they are the elected members of Shiralakoppa Town Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'Panchayat'). They claim to represent the category of men in general. Grievance of the Petitioners in so for as Notification dated 12.7.2004 is that the post of President in Panchayat is now earmarked to a person belonging to Backward Class-A Category and by such earmarking, persons belonging to the general category are deprived of the opportunity to contest the election. It is the contention of the Petitioners that it is total denial of opportunity to persons like Petitioners who belong to general category - men and therefore, the Notification in so far as it relates to the post of President in Panchayat is bad in law. 2. Sri Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the post of President during the last three elections starting from 1996 had been earmarked for a person belonging to Backward Class-A (lady) and a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste in the next election and in the subsequent election to a candidate belonging to general category (lady) and even now, the post having been earmarked to Backward Class-A, the category of general without reservation for ladies therein has never been given an opportunity so far, and therefore, the Notification is bad in law. In this regard, learned Counsel has drawn attention to the provisions of Section 42(2-A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act (for short, the Act). 3. A perusal of the provisions of Section 42(2-A) of the Act indicates that such number of offices of President and Vice-President shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to the total population in the State and reservation in favour of backward classes should be one third of the total number of offices. In so far as backward classes are concerned, the reservation is at 1/3rd which means the reservation for this category is to be earmarked once in every three elections. If reservation in favour of Backward Classes and SC/ST is worked out, the remaining posts will be available for general category. However, provisions of Section 42(2-A) (c) of the Act provides that not less than 1/3rd in each category has to be earmarked for women. If reservation in favour of Backward Classes and SC/ST is worked out, the remaining posts will be available for general category. However, provisions of Section 42(2-A) (c) of the Act provides that not less than 1/3rd in each category has to be earmarked for women. The reservation in favour of backward classes as of now, in so far as the post of President is concerned, cannot be said to be in contravention or in conflict with the reservation provided for in Section 42(2-A) of the Act. The present election being fourth in the row, there is nothing wrong if a backward class is provided opportunity in this election. Though, in reality, men in general category have not had the opportunity so far to contest for the post of President including the present election, the provision is in no way in violation of the requirement of Section 42(2-A) of the Act providing for such reservation. A Notification of the nature of Annexure-D can be found fault with only if it is in reality in conflict with the requirements of the statutory provisions. The grievance made out by the Petitioners though on the face of it appears to be a genuine one and in reality they did not had an opportunity to contest to the post of President in Shiralakoppa Town Panchayat so far, in law, it is not in conflict with the statutory provisions. That being the position, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any writ to interfere in the elections to the Shiralakoppa Town Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petitions are rejected.