Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 654 (KAR)

V. Vanaja v. State of Karnataka

2016-08-29

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2016
ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the impugned Notification bearing No. UDD 25 MLR 2016(2), Bangalore, dated 24-2-2016 issued by the respondent 1 insofar it relates to making reservation for the post of President and Vice-President of the 4th respondent-Municipality at SI. No. 9 vide Annexure-A and to direct the respondents to redo the list at SI. Nos. 7, 9, 19, 35, 50, 51, 62 and 111, in Annexure-A, dated 24-2-2016 and re-allot either President or Vice-President to the Scheduled Caste Woman Category at respondent 4-Municipality at SI. No. 9. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted the that petitioner is the elected Councillor of respondent 4-Bagepalli Town Municipality. She belongs to SC Community and had won the election as Councillor under the category of Scheduled Caste Woman as per the elections results declared on 11-3-2013. The respondent 1 has published the notification for the allotment of the offices of the President and Vice-President to various categories for the Eight terms election in respect of Town Municipal Councils vide notification, without following the guidelines dated 5-2-2016 and in violation of Rule 13(5) of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965 both the office of the President and Vice-President of a Town Municipal Council is reserved for woman which is illegal and violation and even in the eighth term of election the respondents 1 and 2 not yet reserved in favour of Scheduled Caste woman category for the office of the President or Vice-President. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not reserving the post of President or Vice-President to Scheduled Caste woman in the petitioner's Town Municipal Council, has been constrained to approach this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted the that petitioner has prayed to quash the notification dated 24-2-2016 in No. UDD 25 MLR 2016(2), Bangalore insofar as the reservation of office of the President of the Bagepalii Town Municipal Council marked at Annexure-C issued by the respondent and to direct them to maintain the reservation for the Bagepalii Town Municipal Council in respect of President of the Municipality for SC Woman. It is submitted the thatre is no error in the Government allotting office of the President and Vice-President to various categories in respect of certain Town Municipal Councils under Rules 13 and 13-A of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and guidelines issued vide Order No. UDD 25 MLR 2016(2), dated 5-2-2016. 4. It is further submitted the thatre is no violation of Rule 13(5) of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965 the proviso is clear that both the office of the President and Vice-President of a Town Municipal Council can be reserved for woman candidate. Hence the respondents have not violated Rule 13(5) of the Rules by allotting both office of the President and Vice-President to woman insofar as the respondents 5 to 11-Town Municipal Councils are concerned. 5. He further submitted that, as per clauses (4) and (5) of Article 243-T of the Constitution of India, sub-section (2) of Section 42 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 provides for reservation of office of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of City Municipal Council, Town Municipal Councils, Town Panchayath to SCs, STs, BCs and Woman on rotation basis. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent referred W.P. Nos. 15881 to 15883 of 2016, dated 13-4-2016 passed by this Court and in Ravi and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 102383 of 2016 and other connected matters dated 16-3-2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, wherein the notifications issued subsequently came to be quashed upholding the reservation as per the first notification. He further submitted that as per the notification dated 24-2-2016, the writ petitions in the connected matters, it is in respect of Attibele and it is referred as SC Woman, now it is modified as SC for which there is no reason to change the reservation. Hence, the same is bad in law and liable to be quashed being contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. He further submitted that, in the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. 15881 to 15883 of 2016, dated 13-4-2016, the Court has held the that elections conducted as per the guidelines of 5-2-2016, when the modified order was passed by the said guidelines only. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petitions. 8. 7. He further submitted that, in the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. 15881 to 15883 of 2016, dated 13-4-2016, the Court has held the that elections conducted as per the guidelines of 5-2-2016, when the modified order was passed by the said guidelines only. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petitions. 8. He further referred the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No. 3065 of 2010. W.A. Nos. 3096 and 3097 of 2010 in the connected judgments dated 28-9-2010 and referred page 8, sub-para (4) which reads thus: (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 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 Court. 9. Another judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No. 44458 of 2012 and other connected matters if is referred pages 44 and 49 of paras 16 and 21 which read thus: "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. 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 Commission in my view cannot be scrutinised 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. 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 the near future. Therefore, considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion the that 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. More so in the present circumstance, it 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." 10. He has also referred Article 243-ZG of Constitution of India referred as: "243-ZG. 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 243-ZA shall not be called in question in any Court: (b) no election to any municipality 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." 11. Learned Counsel for respondent 2 submitted that, in the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. Learned Counsel for respondent 2 submitted that, in the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. 15881 to 15883 of 2016, dated 13-4-2016, it is held the that elections conducted as per the guidelines of 5-2-2016, when the modified order was passed it has to be on the basis of the said guidelines only. 12. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused entire writ papers. 13. As per guidelines issued by the respondent 1 dated 5-2-2016, the allotment of seats was to be in the sequence starting with providing reservation to category Scheduled Caste Women for the post of President and Vice-President. In the 4th respondent-Town Municipal till date the post of President has been reserved in the following manner since 1995, 1st term BCMA, 2nd term Schedule Tribe, 6th term General Woman, 7th term BCAW and now the President post has been allotted to General Category at eighth term. At any point of time since 1995 the sequence as provided in the guideline date 5-2-2016, it is not followed in fact this time as per the guidelines the rotation and allotment should have been made to category SCW. 14. The allocation of seats have to be made as per Section 42(2-A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and also in terms of Rule 13 of Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and also the guidelines dated 5-2-2016. As per the guidelines issued by the State Government, rotation in respect of other categories shall ensure the thatre is no repetition of reservation of seat with reference to the reservation in the previous seven turns except General and General Woman Category. 15. By the order dated 13-4-2016 in W.P. Nos. 15881 to 15883 of 2016 this Court quashed the modified order. By the order dated 2-6-2016 in W.P. No. 202075 of 2016, the Kalaburagi Bench, High Court of Karnataka has also quashed the notification dated 4-3-2016 published in the Special Karnataka Gazette and directed to hold the elections as per the notification dated 24-2-2016. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 24-2-2016 insofar it relates to 4th respondent-Town Municipal Council is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reserve the seat of President or Vice-President in favour of SCW and re-issue the notification.