ORDER : 1. The petitioner-elected member of Nayakanahatti Town Municipal Council, has challenged the Notification Annexure-B dated 03.09.2018, by which the State Government fixed the Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 3/9 category of reservation for Nayakanahatti Town Municipal Council at Sl.No.69 of that Notification for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ as ‘SCW’ and ‘BCB’ categories. 2. Some of these categories in some Town Municipal Councils were changed by a later Notification dated 06.09.2018, which has been withdrawn by the State Government and accordingly, a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.40660/2018 and connected matters have been disposed of as infructuous on 09.10.2018, in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General Mr. Udaya Holla appeared for the Respondent State. 3. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Notification dated 03.09.2018, the State had repeated the reservation of some Town Municipal Councils without completing the cycle of reservation as earlier fixed by the State and Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 4/9 therefore, there is distinction in this case from the other cases disposed of by this Court. 4. The learned AGA for the Respondent State has pointed out that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Latha and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others dealing with similar provisions under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Zilla Panchayat Resevation for the post of President and Vice President) Rules, 2000 reported in 2017(2) KLJ 421, which decision of this Court rendered on 06.01.2017 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.98529874/2017 on 21.04.2017 and the same principle would apply to the present case also. 5. This Court in the Latha’s case (supra) referring to several decisions on the point earlier Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 5/9 rendered by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “49. 5. This Court in the Latha’s case (supra) referring to several decisions on the point earlier Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 5/9 rendered by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “49. In H. Shivappa and Others V. State of Karnataka and others, the learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the elections to Municipalities, held that there is a distinction between the elections to the post of Chairpersons of Municipalities and the election to the Municipalities itself in the following terms: “36. The bar is in respect of the examination of the question of elections to the Municipalities. It is to be noticed that the election to Municipalities is not the same as elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities, as indicated in Article 243P (e) of the Constitution. 37. Even in Article 243 P(e) in fact a clear distinction has been maintained between a municipality and the Chairpersons of the municipality. Separate provisions providing for reservations have been made in Article 243T for elections to the Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. Municipalities and for elections to the posts of Chairpersons in the Municipalities. The word ‘municipality’ does not automatically take in its fold the Chairpersons of the municipality. The bar contained in Article 243ZG is in respect of the elections to any municipality and not elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities. The bar operates if it is actually so provided for and not by way of an analogy or by way of an extension, if one should understand the position on the settled principles of the interpretation. 38. It is not possible to include the elections to the posts of Chairpersons to a municipality within the meaning of the word ‘municipality’, as the provision is one which curtails the jurisdiction of the Courts, imposes fetters on the jurisdiction, until and unless the bar is express and unambiguous.” The fact situation before the learned Single Judge in that matter was different from the facts Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. involved in the present case. Therefore, that judgment is of no help to the petitioners in the present case. 50. The State of Karnataka & Ors. involved in the present case. Therefore, that judgment is of no help to the petitioners in the present case. 50. In L. Shivanna V. State of Karnataka, the Division Bench held that the only course open to a vigilant citizen is to have the illegality rectified before the election and if not done, as far as the Election Tribunal is concerned, it had no jurisdiction to go into any question relating to the legality of the electoral roll. This judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners in the present case as the issue is not pertaining to challenge to the electoral roll in the present case. 51. In Karnataka State Election Commission, Bangalore V. Sri. G. Sangappa in Writ Appeal Nos.4506 to 4508 of 2010 (LBELE), decided on 3rd December, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others (supra) also dealt with the provisions of Rules of 1998 and held that the rotation in the matter of reservation contemplated under the aforesaid provisions had not been given effect through the impugned Notification dated 08112010. Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. Since the appeal against the previous Division Bench decision in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others (supra) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the aforesaid reasons also, this judgment is also of little help to the petitioners in the present case. 52. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the reasons assigned above, this Court is satisfied that these writ petitions cannot be entertained on merits and upon factual scrutiny of the reservations fixed category wise in the election for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ for the year 2016 of Zilla Panchayats, the same cannot be quashed and no mala fides are established on the part of the State to have fixed these reservations for any illegal purpose and the writ jurisdictions in the present case is barred by Article 243O of the Constitution of India and the writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed accordingly. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. In view of the controversy involved in the present case, the Pattana Panchayath is also covered by the said decision. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6. In view of the controversy involved in the present case, the Pattana Panchayath is also covered by the said decision. Date of Order 12-10-2018 W.P.No.40984/2018 N. Mahantanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 9/9 7. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.