Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 892 (KAR)

J. Varalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

2013-08-08

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners challenge the notification dated 8.2.2013 in No. UDD 32 MLR 2013 produced at Annexure-N to the writ petition and sought for quashing the same and consequently restore the reservation to the office of Mayor for 14th term as notified in Notification dated 17.2.2011 in No. UDD 36 MLR 2011 in favour of General (Woman). 2. The petitioners stated that they are councilors of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP for short) elected from Ward No.86, Marathalli & Ward No.31 Kushalnagar in the election held in the month of April, 2010. Section 10(1)(a) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and Rule 73-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Election) Rules, 1976 govern reservation to the office of Mayors and Deputy Mayors in the Corporations. The Government of Karnataka issued notification dated 23.1.2008 in No. UDD 178 MLR 2007 issuing guidelines for reservation of office of Mayors and Deputy Mayors, in the Corporations. The said Government order was issued as per the directions issued by this Court in W P No.39675/2004. Clause (ix) of the notification deals with sequence in the process of reservation of offices of Mayors and Deputy Mayors in City Corporations. Sub- clause (c) of clause (ix) stipulates that combined list of all Corporations in alphabetical order in English language shall be prepared indicating the points fixed for SW/ST/SC/STW. As per the notification, reservation was prescribed to various City Corporations to the office of Mayors and Deputy Mayors by issuing notifications from time to time. Hitherto there were 15 terms reservations have been prescribed. 3. The prayer made by the petitioners is only in respect of B.B.M.P. It is stated that for the 11th and 12th term, elections were not held to B.B.M.P. Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the 11th term was reserved for General and SC respectively and for 12th term it was reserved for SCW and BCA respectively. Since election for BBMP was not conducted for the said terms, subsequent terms namely 13th and 14th terms, the reservation fixed for the 11th and 12th term should have been carried forward (to the 13th and 14th term) and accordingly notification dated 17.2.2011 in NO.UDD 36 MLR 2011 was issued reserving Mayor and Deputy Mayor in favour of G (W) and BCA. This notification was issued for the 14th term reserving the post of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for G(W) and B C A. The petitioners, who are eligible and entitled as per the reservation to contest for office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Contrary to the guidelines, notification dated 8.2.2013 is issued modifying the notification dated 17.2.2011 reserving office of Mayor for the General and for Deputy Mayor to B.C.A. It is submitted, modification is contrary to law and also principles of reservation followed hitherto. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the reservations have been prescribed as per the KMC Act and Election Rules, roster points have been fixed with a particular object to the office of respondent and that should be adhered to and followed. Under these circumstances, modification order dated 8.2.2013 is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and provisions of reservation under K M C Act and the Rules. 5. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondent State Government. Submission has been made in support of modification order dated 8.2.2013. It is stated that the notification dated 23.1.2008 was issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W P No.39572/2008 whereby the respondent was directed for making the reservations to the office of Mayors and Deputy Mayors on the basis of rotation which has to be clear, definite and ascertainable and fixed one. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said notification, only office of Mayor was reserved for General (Woman). The said classification was made as per sub-clause (3) of Section 10(1) of the Act which provides for reservation of not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the State from each of the categories reserved for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/backward class & others which are not reserved for woman and that the office reserved to be allowed by rotation. The term of the said office is for one year. 6. While issuing notification to BBMP for the 14th term, there were nine City Corporations in the State. On the basis of 2001 census, the reservations were classified as per the Act and the Election Rules including Tumkur as one of the City Corporations. The term of the said office is for one year. 6. While issuing notification to BBMP for the 14th term, there were nine City Corporations in the State. On the basis of 2001 census, the reservations were classified as per the Act and the Election Rules including Tumkur as one of the City Corporations. But the notification upgrading Tumkur Municipality into a Corporation was challenged in WRIT PETITION No.7066/2011 in which the said notification was quashed thereby reducing the Corporations to 8 in Nos. When Corporations were 9 in Nos. the office of Mayor to BBMP was reserved for General (W) (on the basis of 2001 census) as per notification dated 17.2.2011. Since Tumkur City Corporation was quashed, the reservation required modification. Again by taking 2001 census for the purpose of reservation while doing, it was required to issue modification to the office of Mayor in BBMP. 8 Corporations and totally 16 offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor have been classified for the purpose of reservation namely 3 posts for Scheduled Caste by taking 16.2% population and one post reserved for Scheduled Tribe by taking their population into 6.6% and 5 posts in favour of Backward Class `A' & `B' by taking their population at 33..33% and again it was further classified for the purpose of reservation in favour of woman as it was required under clause (c) of 2008 notification. That has been worked out after the notification of Tumkur was set aside, and while modifying totally 7 offices were reserved in favour of General as per one-third ratio, two offices have been reserved in favour of General (W). By virtue of calculation, the present notification has been issued by modifying the reservation in favour of General (W) to General. Accordingly, there is no error in issuing the present notification which modifies the earlier notification. 7. Section 10(1)(A) of the K M C Act provides for reservation which has to be notified by the Government. The Government has to issue notifications reserving the offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in favour of various social groups. The classification and reservation is on the basis of number of posts in the Corporations. There are 8 Corporations within which reservation has to be operated. Earlier while issuing Notification dated 17.2.2011, there were 9 City Corporations and 18 posts were there. The classification and reservation is on the basis of number of posts in the Corporations. There are 8 Corporations within which reservation has to be operated. Earlier while issuing Notification dated 17.2.2011, there were 9 City Corporations and 18 posts were there. They have been classified on the basis of the notification issued on 23.1.2008. The said notification prescribe method of classification and division of roster by rotation etc. Office of Mayor was reserved in favour of General (W) when 9 corporations were there. After Tumkur has been taken out by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the reservation had to be worked out from among 16 offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, which necessitated withdrawal of 17.2.2011 notification. When Tumkur City Corporation was in the list, there were two posts reserved for general woman. That required to be reduced to one on quashing the notification relating to Tumkur City Corporation. In the same manner, two posts have been fixed in respect of three posts of general category. Thus one excess post was allowed in the general category. In order to modify the reservations on the basis of available 8 City Corporations, it was required to reduce the post of General (W) by the time the present notification was issued, elections were held in respect of all the other corporations except BBMP. In view of the same, there was no occasion for the Government to modify the offices of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in respect of other Corporations and it was possible only to be made in respect of BBMP since 14th year notification was yet to be issued. Under these circumstances, the Government has issued notification dated 8.2.2013 changing reservation for the post of Mayor from General (W) to General. 8. Under these circumstances, the Government has issued notification dated 8.2.2013 changing reservation for the post of Mayor from General (W) to General. 8. The respondent No.4 filed statement of objections and also produced proceedings of the Government classifying reservation as per 2001 census, which is extracted herein below:- As per 2001 Census Total % of Population Total population in the 52850562 State Schedule Caste Population 8,563,930 16.2% in the State Schedule Tribe Population 3,463,986 6.6% in the State City Corporation + 8 Mayor 8 + Deputy Mayor 816 Scheduled Caste = 16 x 16.2/100 = 3 1/3 of each category to be reserved for women SC = 2 SC (W) = 1 Scheduled Tribe = 16 x 6.6/100 = 1 ST = 0; ST (W) = 1 Backward Class (A&B) = 16 x 33.33/100 = 5 Out of 5 Backward Classes seats, 80% to be reserved for Backward Class A and 20% to be reserved For Backward Class B as under:- BCA 80% = 4 BCA = 3; BCA (W) = 1 BCB 20% = 1 BCB = 0; BCB (W) = 1-----9 General = 16 - 9 = 7 (SC+ST+BCA+BCB) (03 + 01 + 04 + 1) General = 5; General Women = 2--------16 9. The reasons for modification has been thoroughly discussed at the various stages by the higher officers including the Ministers. The proceedings also further disclose that the representations made by the women councilors for reservation in their favour has also been considered. For the year 2010 when Tumkur City Corporation was in the list, there were three posts of General (W) of which two for the offices of Mayor and one for office of Deputy Mayor. But by virtue of calculation on the basis of 8 Corporations, that has been reduced to one each to the office of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. In favour of general category totally five seats were reserved, 3 for Mayor and 2 for Deputy Mayor, that has not been changed. In the same manner, from category to BCA(W), there were two posts, which was reduced to one. While making these changes, after taking out Tumkur City Corporation, it was necessary to issue modification order. 10. In favour of general category totally five seats were reserved, 3 for Mayor and 2 for Deputy Mayor, that has not been changed. In the same manner, from category to BCA(W), there were two posts, which was reduced to one. While making these changes, after taking out Tumkur City Corporation, it was necessary to issue modification order. 10. The submission of the petitioners that 11th and 12 terms reservation should have been carried forward, though holds good, but because of changing circumstances in view of the order passed by this Court in quashing the notification pertaining to Tumkur City Corporation, it was not possible to carry it forward. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error in Government issuing the impugned notification changing the reservation from General (W) to General for the post of Mayor. Therefore, the present writ petition seeking to sustain the notification dated 17.2.2011 so far as office of Mayor and quash the notification dated 8.2.2013 to that extent is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected.