JUDGMENT R Devdas, J. - The perennial problem of reservation and allotment of seats to the posts of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Municipalities is once again brought before this Court. The elections for the Councilors of the Municipalities in the State of Karnataka was held in the month of August, 2018 and the notifications of reservation of posts of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of all the City Municipal Councils (CMC), Town Municipal Councils (TMC) and Town Panchayats (TP), (hereinafter referred to as 'Municipal Councils') were issued by the State Government on 03.09.2018. Some of the Councillors who were aggrieved by the allotment approached this Court. Writ Petition Nos.47171-47190/2018 was dismissed, but during the course of the appeal proceedings in W.A.Nos.157-176/2019, the learned Advocate General made a submission on behalf of the State Government that since there is an error apparent in the notifications, the same will be withdrawn. Accordingly, by a notification dated 06.02.2020, the earlier notifications were withdrawn. 2. W.P.No.2356/2020 was filed with a prayer to prohibit the State Government from modifying the reservation made in the earlier notifications dated 03.09.2018 and further sought for a direction to hold elections in terms of the reservation made in the notifications dated 03.09.2018. During the course of the said proceedings, the respondent-State was directed to place fresh draft notifications. Accordingly fresh draft notifications were prepared and placed before this Court on 09.03.2020. The statement of the petitioners in W.P.No.2356/2020 was recorded to the effect that they had no grievance against the draft notifications and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of as not requiring further adjudication. In accordance with the draft notifications, the State Government issued the final notifications dated 11.03.2020. 3. The notifications dated 11.03.2020 were also challenged in W.P.No.5999/2020 and connected matters. By order dated 17.03.2020, a co-ordinate Bench directed the State Government not to precipitate the matter. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to look into the matter. Thereafter, as per the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, guidelines regarding reservation to the office of President and Vice-President of the Municipalities were published in terms of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to look into the matter. Thereafter, as per the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, guidelines regarding reservation to the office of President and Vice-President of the Municipalities were published in terms of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020. Consequent thereto, the Table of Reservation of Offices of President and Vice- President of the Municipalities for different categories in accordance with sub-section (2-A) of Section 42 read with Section 353 were amended and specified in terms of The Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election (Amendment) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). 4. Consequent to the issuance of guidelines and the amended Rules, by notification bearing No.UDD 65 MLR 2020 dated 08.10.2020, the State Government withdrew all the three notifications dated 11.03.2020. Since there are three categories of Municipalities viz., City Municipal Council (CMC), Town Municipal Council (TMC) and Town Panchayats (TP), three separate notifications dated 08.10.2020 were notified reserving the officers of President and Vice-President in all the Municipal Councils. All the three notifications pertaining to CMCs, TMCs and TPs are under challenge in these batch of writ petitions. Since the law governing the reservation and allotment of seats to CMCs, TMCs and TPs are common, since the grounds raised challenging the allotment are also common, all the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together. 5. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, followed by Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel and all other learned Counsels on record. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the reservations made to the Offices of Presidents and Vice-Presidents are not in consonance with the law governing reservation and rotation to the Offices. It is submitted that Section 42(2-A)(a) provides for reservation of the Offices of President and Vice-President proportion to the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State. Similarly the proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (2-A) of Section 42 mandates reservation of one-third of the Offices of President and Vice-President for persons falling under Backward Classes Category. Out of the said one-third, 80% of the Offices of President and Vice-President shall be reserved for persons falling under Category 'A' and 20% to Category 'B' of the Backward Classes. Out of the said one-third, 80% of the Offices of President and Vice-President shall be reserved for persons falling under Category 'A' and 20% to Category 'B' of the Backward Classes. Clause (c) of sub-section (2-A) of Section 42 mandates reservation of 50% of the total number of Offices of President and Vice-President in the State from each category reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and those which are non-reserved, for women. Most importantly, the proviso to Clause (c) of sub-section (2-A) of Section 42 provides that the offices reserved under the sub-section shall be allotted by rotation in the prescribed manner to different Municipal Councils. To remove doubts, in the 'explanation' following the proviso, it is declared that the principle of rotation for the purpose of reservation of offices under the sub-section shall commence from the first ordinary election to be held after the first day of June, 1994. 6. It was further pointed out that the manner of rotation stands prescribed in clause (2) of Rule 13 of the Rules, providing that the allotment of reservation shall commence from the Scheduled Tribes category, to the office of the President of the Councils having the highest percentage of population belonging to the Scheduled Tribes with reference to the total population of the Municipal area. The same procedure was required to be followed by the Government for allotting the offices of Vice- President to various Municipal Councils, but excluding the Municipal Councils in which the office of the President have been already allotted to such category. It was further pointed out that Rule 13-A provides for rotation of offices. Similarly Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 13-A mandates that the reservation of the offices shall be allotted by rotation to the next Municipal Council having the next higher percentage of population in which the Offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms. It is submitted that provision is made in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Rules, 1965 in terms of the mandate of the Constitution of India, as found in Article 243T. 7. Having regard to the provisions of law as enumerated hereinabove, learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, sought to point out from individual cases as to how the impugned notifications have violated the law and the reasons for which the impugned notifications are required to be set aside. 7. Having regard to the provisions of law as enumerated hereinabove, learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, sought to point out from individual cases as to how the impugned notifications have violated the law and the reasons for which the impugned notifications are required to be set aside. Taking the case of Hassan CMC, it was pointed out that there are 35 Councillors in the CMC, of which 17 were elected on the symbol of Janata Dal (S), 13 from Bharatiya Janata Party, 2 from Indian National Congress and 3 Independents. It is submitted that there is only one seat reserved in the CMC for Scheduled Tribe category. The said seat was won by a BJP candidate. It is submitted that in terms of the requirement of the Rules, two separate lists in Appendix-III are prepared showing the Table of CMCs in the descending order, based on the population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State. It is submitted that as per the said Table pertaining to Scheduled Tribes, Hassan CMC is at Sl.No.53, having Scheduled Tribe population of 1%. 8. In order to drive home the point that the impugned notification is nothing but an arbitrary colourable exercise of power and extenuated by mala fide intention, it was pointed out that many other CMCs which have higher population of Scheduled Tribes, as could be seen from the Table Appendix-III, viz CMCs of Harihara, Koppal, Dandeli, Kolar etc., and which were hitherto not allotted with reservation of Scheduled Tribe category in the office of President, have been skipped and allotment has been made to Hassan (President), violating the Rules of rotation. 9. Most importantly, it is submitted that the said allotment to the office of President, in the category of Scheduled Tribe is deliberately made, to ensure that the sole candidate in the CMC of the Scheduled Tribe category who belongs to the ruling party (BJP), would occupy the post of President, without any contest. It is submitted that in Hassan CMC, the majority of the Councillors (17 out of 35) belong to the Janata Dal (S) party. Therefore, if there is a contest, obviously the candidate put up by Janata Dal (S) party would secure the majority. It is submitted that in Hassan CMC, the majority of the Councillors (17 out of 35) belong to the Janata Dal (S) party. Therefore, if there is a contest, obviously the candidate put up by Janata Dal (S) party would secure the majority. Similar allegations are made with respect to Arasikere CMC, that the office of the President is received to Scheduled Tribe category overlooking Harihara and Koppal CMCs which have higher population of Scheduled Tribes. 10. Arguments on similar lines were made with respect to Koppal CMC and Channagiri TMC. With respect to Channagiri TMC, it was pointed out that out of 23 seats in the Council, 10 belong to Indian National Congress (I), 10 to BJP and 3 to Janata Dal (S). Only one Woman candidate who belonged to Scheduled Caste category was elected on BJP ticket. In the impugned notification, seat of the President of Channagiri TMC is reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman category. This is to ensure that there is no contest and the sole BJP Woman candidate will have elected without contest. It was also pointed out that in the Table Appendix-III (TMC) of the Scheduled Castes, Channagiri is at Sl.No.79 having Scheduled Caste population of 5.81%, while, there are several other TMCs having higher population of Scheduled Castes, like Gundlupet (Sl.No.64 - 13.81%) which were never allotted with reservation of Scheduled Caste Woman to the President's post. It was further submitted that Channagiri TMC has a sizeable Scheduled Tribe population of 5.81%, but reservation to the post of President of Scheduled Tribe category has been allotted to Krishnarajapete TMC which has 1.49% of Scheduled Tribe population, Talikote which is at Sl.No.92 with Scheduled Tribe population of 1.09%, are given Scheduled Tribe reservation and in case of Madhugiri reservation of Scheduled Tribe is repeated. It is submitted that repetition of reservation by rotation is permissible only after completion of a cycle, covering all the Municipal Councils. 11. Insofar as Koppal CMC is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, submitted that there is only one Scheduled Tribe seat reserved for the Councillors numbering 31 in all and the said seat was won by an Independent candidate. It is further submitted that in the notification dated 11.03.2020, the post of President was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. 11. Insofar as Koppal CMC is concerned, learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, submitted that there is only one Scheduled Tribe seat reserved for the Councillors numbering 31 in all and the said seat was won by an Independent candidate. It is further submitted that in the notification dated 11.03.2020, the post of President was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. Realising that the lone Independent Councillor would be elected to the post of President, without any contest, the State Government has withdrawn the said allotment and in the impugned notification the President's post is reserved for General (Woman). It is submitted that the State Government has acted with malicious intent and such action amounts to colourable exercise of power. 12. Learned Counsels have argued with reference to the Table Appendix-III that Municipal Councils which have higher population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been left out, while reservations have been made in favour of Municipal Councils which have lesser population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Similarly grievance on the flip side is also raised that though the Municipal Council has lesser population of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, reservations have been made to such Municipal Councils ignoring the rule of allotment based on higher population. Reference to such cases are as follows: Sl. No. Municipal Council Percentage of population (%) Allotment made to Percentage of population (%) 1. Koppal - ST 3.90 Hassan 1.00 2. Harihara - ST 3.99 Arasikere 1.51 3. Tiptur - ST 2.25 Hassan Arasikere 1.00 1.51 4. Tiptur - SC 8.15 Puttur 8.98 Not given 5. Channagiri ST 5.80 K.R.Pete Talikote 1.66 1.09 6. K.R.Pete - ST 1.66 Bailahongal Gajendraghada Berur Hukkeri 3.55 2.49 2.16 2.12 Not given 13. Another set of grievance is that reservations have been repeated, ignoring the rule of completion of a cycle. The following are such cases: Sl. No. Municipal Council Previous Allotment Present Allotment 9th Term 1. Shidlaghatta CMC 6th term- SC SC 2. Bagepalli TMC 7th term- BCAW BCAW 3. Bannur TMC 5th term- STW STW 4. Somwarpet TP 5th term- SC SC 5. Sringeri TP 1st term-G 3rd term-G 5th term-G 6th term-G G 6. Shorapur CMC 4th term- STW STW 14. While pointing out to the proviso to Clause (5) of Rule 13, it was submitted that both the Offices of President and Vice-President of a Municipal Council should not be reserved for women. Somwarpet TP 5th term- SC SC 5. Sringeri TP 1st term-G 3rd term-G 5th term-G 6th term-G G 6. Shorapur CMC 4th term- STW STW 14. While pointing out to the proviso to Clause (5) of Rule 13, it was submitted that both the Offices of President and Vice-President of a Municipal Council should not be reserved for women. Such violations have been pointed out in the case of Bangarpet TMC, Shiralkoppa TP and Nalathwad TP. 15. Since it was argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Rules make provision for flexibility whenever the Government encounters certain difficulties in providing reservation by rotation, the learned Counsels for the petitioners point out to the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 11.09.2020, where at Clause-xi (e) it is provided that proceedings shall be drawn up indicating reasons for reservation of seats in respect of each category of the Offices of President and Vice- President of the Municipalities. In other words, it is contended that though the Government is vested with certain discretion allowing play in the joints, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The learned Counsels urged that the original records may be called for to verify as to whether such proceedings were drawn up and if any specific reasons have been assigned for each deviation. Nevertheless, it was contended that to the knowledge of the petitioners, the State Government has not drawn up such proceedings and neither is any reason assigned in every specific case for deviations from the Rules and guidelines. 16. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State raises a preliminary objection that in view of Rule 15, these writ petitions are not maintainable. It is submitted that Sub- Clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Rule 17, provides that if there is non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any of the Rules, as alleged by the petitioners, they are required to challenge the same only by way of a duly constituted Election Petition. It is submitted that since the elections are held, the validity of such election can be called in question only by way of a petition presented to the District Judge, in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules. It is submitted that since the elections are held, the validity of such election can be called in question only by way of a petition presented to the District Judge, in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules. Another limb of argument is that since the elections have been concluded, even if the elections are subject to the final outcome of these writ petitions as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and with respect to 5 CMCs and 2 TMCs, in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLA (C) No.12683/2020, the elected Presidents and Vice- Presidents not being impleaded as party respondents, no order could be passed quashing the impugned notification. It is further submitted that these petitions are not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the respective Municipal Council and therefore, on the strength of such grievances, the entire impugned notification cannot be quashed. 17. On the merits of the matter, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that though a declaration is made in Section 42 and Rule 13- A that for the purpose of reservation of Offices by rotation the cycle of rotation shall commence from 01.06.1994, in view of the non-adherence to such cycle or admitted deviation in the past, there can be no reference point from which rotation could be continued. In other words, it is submitted that the reservation allotment made by successive Governments on earlier occasions shows that sufficient deviation have been made while rotating the reservation of Offices. It was pointed out from the earlier notifications, that strict adherence of the Rules of rotation has not happened. Rotation in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has gone back and forth, for reasons not known. Therefore, while issuing the impugned notification, if this Government has thought it fit to resolve the confusion by sticking to the principle, "no repetition of the immediate past reservation" and has proceeded in terms of such principles, no fault could be found in the impugned notification. 18. It was pointed out from the preamble to the Government Order dated 11.09.2020 that the Cabinet Sub-Committee took a decision on 30.07.2020 to review the guidelines dated 16.08.2018 and directed that the Municipal Councils are functioning without the President and Vice-President from September 2018. 18. It was pointed out from the preamble to the Government Order dated 11.09.2020 that the Cabinet Sub-Committee took a decision on 30.07.2020 to review the guidelines dated 16.08.2018 and directed that the Municipal Councils are functioning without the President and Vice-President from September 2018. Every notification of allotment of seats from September 2018 have been found fault with. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things it was directed by the cabinet Sub-Committee that rotation shall be made not repeating the reservation made on the previous term and elections are required to be conducted expediently. 19. It is further submitted that of the 59 CMCs only 9 writ petitions pertaining to CMCs have been filed before the Principal Bench of this Court, 4 writ petitions before the Dharwad Bench and 2 writ petitions before the Kalaburagi Bench. Similarly, out of 117 TMCs, only 7 writ petitions are filed before the Principal Bench, 9 writ petitions before the Dharwad Bench and 10 writ petitions before Kalaburagi Bench. With respect to TPs, out of 100, only 8 writ petitions are filed before the Principal Bench, 6 writ petitions before Dharwad Bench and 2 writ petitions before Kalaburagi Bench. It was therefore contended that this clearly shows that the majority of the Councillors of the Municipal Councils are happy with the allotment, while a miniscule percentage were unhappy. Therefore, it was submitted that going by the rule of majority, interference at this stage is not called for. 20. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that in many of these writ petitions, the petitioners are requesting that a particular category of reservation should be made to the particular Council. It is submitted that no Councillor could claim as a matter of right that a particular reservation should be provided. Going by the provisions of law governing reservation and rotation, the authority entrusted with the responsibility of providing the reservation by rotation can only operate the list taking into consideration several aspects. There is no hard and fast rule that a particular reservation shall be given to a particular Council. On that ground alone, it is submitted that such writ petitions cannot be entertained. While concluding, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is a matter of record that every notification issued earlier, starting from the year 1994 or even prior to that, has been met with challenges. On that ground alone, it is submitted that such writ petitions cannot be entertained. While concluding, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it is a matter of record that every notification issued earlier, starting from the year 1994 or even prior to that, has been met with challenges. It is submitted that it is next to impossible to come up with a notification that satisfies each and every Councillor. That is the reason why the Legislature has thought it fit by using the words, "as far as possible", granting discretion, while undertaking the exercise of providing reservation. 21. Since a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition was raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, let us deal with that issue foremost. Alternate remedy Rule 15 (1) provides that the validity of the election of the President or the Vice-President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge, within seven days from the date of declaration of the election, by any candidate at such election or by three or more Councillors joined together as petitioners. Clause (3) of Rule 15 provides that the petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void and claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and when no such further declaration is claimed, only the Returning Officer as respondent. Rule 17(a)(ii) enumerates the grounds for declaring the election of the returned candidate as void, that being, non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or any of the Rules. 22. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsels Sri Jayakumar S.Patil and Sri A.S.Ponnanna, the challenge raised in these petitions are directed towards the reservation and rotation of seats of the Offices of Presidents and Vice-Presidents. A plain reading of the above provisions, do not envisage or invest powers with the District Judge to go into the question of the validity of reservation notification. A plain reading of the above provisions, do not envisage or invest powers with the District Judge to go into the question of the validity of reservation notification. Rule 17 invests power in the District Judge, in a duly constituted Election Petition, to declare the election of the returned candidate to be void, if in the opinion of the District Judge the 'result' of the election has been materially affected by any noncompliance with the provisions of the Act or of any of the Rules. A plain reading of the said provision would mean and refer to the action and conduct of the returned candidate in not complying with the provisions of the Act or the Rules. By any stretch of imagination, these provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that the law invests powers in the District Judge, while dealing with an Election Petition, to declare a notification issued under Rule 13 and 13-A of the Rules as void or illegal. 23. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr.Ravindra Nayak Vs. Karnataka State Election Commission and Others,2019 ILR(Kar) 1409, while considering the question of alternate remedy in the matter of reservation and rotation of seats arising out of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, but while dealing with similar provisions of law, noticed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2018) 12 SCC 61 . The Apex Court in the case of Bharati Reddy has held that judicial review is a part of basic structure and therefore the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an absolute bar, though it is left to the discretion of the Court as to whether such power is to be exercised in a particular case. While interpreting Section 35 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which appears to state that the election petition could be preferred to redress a grievance where there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or Rules, or orders made thereunder, the co-ordinate Bench has held that the principle of rotation as envisaged by the Guidelines is not merely a private right of a contestant but is a statutory requirement and such grievance if left open to be raised by every individual contestant subsequent to the announcement of results would not only be impractical, but an illusory alternative remedy, and in fact no remedy at all in the light of the discussion therein. This Court is in respectful agreement of the decision of the coordinate Bench. Therefore, in the matter of reservation of the Offices of President and Vice- President and for that matter to post of Councillors, Election Petition as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules is not a remedy. 24. On facts, it is required to be noticed that when writ petitions No.11420/2020, 11427/2020 and 11439/2020 (all the three pertaining to CMCs) came up for Preliminary Hearing and Orders on interim relief were prayed for, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General was recorded to the effect that from the year 2018 the Municipal Councils were without the heads and all efforts of the State Government in trying to hold elections by issuing notification have been met with opposition. The learned Additional Advocate general had submitted that it is impossible to arrive at a notification which would be in total compliance of the guidelines. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that it would in the best interest of the Municipalities to go ahead with the elections and thereafter if this Court finds that the reservation made is in total contravention of the guidelines, necessary action could be taken. It was submitted that the process of election should be permitted to be continued. This Court proceeded to pass interim order of stay of the impugned notification dated 08.10.2020 pertaining to the CMCs. Thereafter, by order dated 19.10.2020 the impugned notifications dated 08.10.2020 pertaining to the TMCs and TPs were also stayed. 25. In the meanwhile, the interim order dated 15.10.2020 pertaining to CMCs were called in question in W.A.No.516/2020. This Court proceeded to pass interim order of stay of the impugned notification dated 08.10.2020 pertaining to the CMCs. Thereafter, by order dated 19.10.2020 the impugned notifications dated 08.10.2020 pertaining to the TMCs and TPs were also stayed. 25. In the meanwhile, the interim order dated 15.10.2020 pertaining to CMCs were called in question in W.A.No.516/2020. The Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 21.10.2020 directed the State Government to hold elections pursuant to the notifications dated 08.10.2020 but the elections and the results were directed to be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. Consequent thereto, this Court by order dated 22.10.2020, modified the interim orders pertaining to TMCs and TPs, permitting the State Government to hold elections, while retaining the conditions that the elections and results shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. 26. Thereafter, on 03.11.2020, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Special Leave Petitions were filed against the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. It was submitted that the SLPs pertained to 5 CMCs and 2 TMCs. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had disposed of the SLA(C) No.12683/2020 by order dated 28.10.2020 reiterating the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.516/2020, but with an observation that equities can be adjusted by reiterating the observation of the Division Bench in the impugned order to the effect that the outcome of the elections referred to in the respective writ petitions, shall be subject to the result of the concerned writ petitions. However, the election programme was directed to be proceeded until the stage of counting. But the final results of the subject elections, referred to in the concerned writ petitions, were directed not to be declared until the pronouncement of the final judgment by the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petitions. No doubt all contentions available to the parties were left open to be decided uninfluenced by the order of the Division Bench. 27. Such being the scenario and when the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the equities can be adjusted by reiterating the observation of the Division Bench, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned AAG should have desisted from raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions. 27. Such being the scenario and when the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the equities can be adjusted by reiterating the observation of the Division Bench, in the humble opinion of this Court, the learned AAG should have desisted from raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions. Further, as rightly submitted by learned Counsel Sri Goutham Dev Ullal, this is a third round of litigation questioning the notifications issued by the State Government. It is by now well settled and this Court would reiterate that when successive petitions are filed and various directions were earlier issued by the Courts, the subsequent proceedings cannot be turned down on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 28. On the merits of the matter, it is too obvious that the procedure contemplated under the Rules have not been followed. Clause (2) of Rule 13-A clearly provides for the mode of rotation to the posts of Presidents and Vice- Presidents. The order of allotment as contemplated is - Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste-Woman, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Tribe- Woman, Backward class category 'A', Backward class Category-A Woman, Backward class Category-B, Backward class Category-B Woman, General-Woman and such category reserved in the previous terms shall as far as possible be not allotted to the same category in the succeeding term until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category. Clause (3) of Rule 13-A provides that both the offices of the President and Vice-President shall not be allotted in favour of the same category and Woman and in case of an Office of the President being allotted to the category of Scheduled Castes, the office of the Vice-President shall not be allotted to the category of Scheduled Tribes, but shall be allotted to the next category in the cycle of rotation and vice-versa. 29. Clause (4) of Rule 13-A mandates rotation to the Municipal Council having the next higher percentage of population in which the offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms. 29. Clause (4) of Rule 13-A mandates rotation to the Municipal Council having the next higher percentage of population in which the offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms. In terms of Clause (5), the State Government is required to prepare and maintain separate registers of Offices of President and Vice- President allotted to different categories in Form- A. Similarly, allotment of different Municipal Councils for each category is required to be maintained in separate Form-B. Obviously these requirements are put in place to ensure allotment in the succeeding term by excluding reservations already made in the previous terms. 30. Keeping in mind the said requirements, when we analyse the allegations made by the petitioners, it is evident that deviations in the impugned notifications are clearly visible. The mandatory requirement as found in Clause (4) of Rule 13A in rotating the reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories to the next higher percentage of population in which the Offices have not been allotted to them in the previous terms, has not been followed in the case of Harihara and Koppal CMCs which have more population of Scheduled Tribes, when compared to Arasikere and Hassan CMCs. Similarly in the case of Channagiri TMC, the post of President is reserved to Scheduled Caste (Woman), ignoring Gundlupet TMC which has more population of Scheduled Castes. On the other hand, Channagiri TMC which has 5.81% of Scheduled Tribe population is denied the said reservation and reservation is given to Krishnarajapete TMC which has 1.49% of Scheduled Tribe population. 31. Moreover, the petitioners have alleged that such deviation have been consciously made to ensure unopposed election of Councillors to the post of President, belonging to the ruling party in the State. Such serious allegations cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. 32. The other set of allegations that reservations have been repeated ignoring the rule of completion of a cycle, could not be controverted at the hands of the respondent-State Government. Clause (2) of Rule 13A provides for the mode of rotation and clearly mandates that the category of reservation in the previous terms shall not be allotted to the same category until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category. Clause (2) of Rule 13A provides for the mode of rotation and clearly mandates that the category of reservation in the previous terms shall not be allotted to the same category until the cycle of rotation is completed in respect of such category. This would mean that unless and until a particular type of reservation, say for example, Scheduled Caste Woman is allotted in the descending order to the last of the Municipal Council in the list prepared in the descending order at Appendix-III, the same shall not be repeated to any of the Municipal Councils which have already had the reservation in the previous terms. There are 59 CMCs in the State and 5 posts of President are reserved for Scheduled Caste Woman. The impugned notifications is issued for the 9th term, which means, till the 8th term, going by the descending order, 40 posts of President should have got the reservation of Scheduled Caste Woman. Since the cycle is not complete until all the 59 CMCs get the reservation of Scheduled Caste Woman, there cannot be repetition to any of the CMCs which earlier had the benefit of reservation. In Table No.1, as found in the notification dated 28.09.2020, the highest number of reservations are in the category of Backward Class-A and Backward Class-A Women viz., 6 each. Even in those categories the cycle remains incomplete. Therefore, on the face of it, reservation in any category could not have been repeated. However, if there was any genuine reason for repetition, the same should have been put in writing, as required under the guidelines, which could justify such deviation. 33. When it comes to the question of General category, things stand on a different footing. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihari Lal Rada Vs. Anil Jain (Tinu) and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 1 , has held that there cannot be any such reservation of seats in Municipalities nor to the office of Chairpersons in favour of candidates belonging to general category. There is no separate category like general category. It was held that the expression "belonging to the General Category" wherever employed means the seats or offices earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. There is no separate category like general category. It was held that the expression "belonging to the General Category" wherever employed means the seats or offices earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. The unreserved seats were euphemistically described as general category seats/open seats available for all candidates who are otherwise qualified to contest to that office. Therefore, the averments made by some of the petitioners that there is repetition of general category and therefore, such reservations should be set aside, cannot be countenanced. 34. This Court would hasten to add that when it comes to the category "General Women", the rule of rotation and non-repetition before completion of the cycle would still apply. In the mode of allotment as enunciated in the rules and guidelines, the last category to be allotted is "General" category. Obviously the General category would have to be filled in the remaining seats, after allotment of reserved seats. But a word of caution is necessary here. If the mode of reservation and rotation is followed as per the prescription, then filling up the remaining posts with General category seats is justifiable. But if the General category seats are allotted even before allotment of the reserved seats, then allegation of mala fides would still be considerable. In order to steer clear of such allegations, the State and its authorities are required to maintain the worksheet and reasons in writing. 35. This Court would also accept the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General that a right to elect is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and simple, a statutory right. In Jyoti Basu and others Vs. Debi Ghosal and others, (1982) 1 SCC 691 , it was held that right to elect, though fundamental to democracy, it is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. The same would apply even to the right of being elected. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. In that view of the matter, no one can claim that a particular reservation has to be made to a particular post. It is for the State authority to workout the modalities in terms of the rules and guidelines. 36. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. In that view of the matter, no one can claim that a particular reservation has to be made to a particular post. It is for the State authority to workout the modalities in terms of the rules and guidelines. 36. On going through these provisions and the guidelines, including the new guidelines dated 11.09.2020, this Court is of the opinion that there can be no room for confusion of the manner in which the reservation is required to be rotated. In every fresh term, the exercise is required to be started from the category of Scheduled Tribes, from top of the list. If for some reason, assignment of a particular reservation has been skipped, in the next term due regard is required to be had to provide the reservation which was legitimately to be given on the previous term. Therefore, the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no reference point from where to start, since deviations have been made in the previous terms, cannot be countenanced. 37. The Legislature in its wisdom, could foresee some difficulties that could crop up while preparing the draft of rotation. It is for this reason that a permissible flexibility in the form of play in the joints are provided, but it requires specific reasons to be recorded in writing. This Court has gone through the original records submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. Unfortunately, no proceedings as contemplated in Clause (xi)(e) of the guidelines/Government Order dated 11.09.2020 seems to have been recorded with respect to any of the deviations. The learned Additional Advocate General is unable to offer resistance to the factual submissions made at the hands of the petitioners. 38. The vociferous contentions of the petitioners pointing out to the manner in which allotment of reservation is made, jumping the queue and the benefit of such allotment flowing to a candidate belonging to the ruling party, getting a walkover since there could not be any contest, there having been no other candidate in such category, are serious allegations which cannot be brushed aside lightly by saying that it is a 'mere coincidence', as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. 39. 39. The same principle would apply to cases where it is alleged that there has been repetition, without completing the cycle and in cases where both the posts of President and Vice-President have been reserved in favour of Women. If the authorities had encountered certain difficulties and could not avoid repetition or allotment of both the seats to Women, then in terms of the guidelines, due reasons had to be recorded in writing. When allegations of mala fides, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power are made against the State and its authorities, this Court is required to examine the same and if required call upon the State and its authorities to substantiate their action. As noticed earlier, this Court did call upon the respondent-State to place on record the reasons for the obvious deviations and nothing is forthcoming from the respondent-State Government, except stating that they have followed the principle 'no repetition of reservation made in the previous term' as provided in one of Clauses of the Government Order dated 11.09.2020. 40. It is by now well settled that an executive order/Government Order cannot overrule a statutory provision and rules having statutory force governing the field. Clarification to enable the implementation of the provisions may be made by issuance of Government or Executive Orders. Even otherwise, in the Government Order dated 11.09.2020, the Government has enumerated the general principles to be followed for the purpose of fixing the reservation and the first of the Clause is that the reservation of the Offices of President and Vice-President for different categories will be done as per the amended Rules. The requirement of rotating the reservations to the Municipal Council having the next highest percentage of that category has not been done away with, in the Government Order. 41. In the light of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the three impugned notifications, all dated 08.10.2020 are required to be set aside. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the Municipal Councils have been without heads from August 2018. The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that a miniscule percentage of Councillors are before this Court, while the majority are happy with the reservations, may sound convincing, but that cannot justify or stop this Court from quashing the notifications. The submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that a miniscule percentage of Councillors are before this Court, while the majority are happy with the reservations, may sound convincing, but that cannot justify or stop this Court from quashing the notifications. While this Court is convinced that the impugned notifications are a blatant violation of the rules of reservation and rotation, extenuated by oblique motive and malice, writ requires to be issued. There are about 24 writ petitions before this Court, 19 before the Dharwad Bench and 14 before the Kalaburagi Bench. Except a few, the impending majority of writ petitions pertain to the post of President in various Municipal Councils. Any change in the allotment of reservation to the posts of Presidents will have a natural impact on the reservation to the posts of Vice-Presidents. 85 42. This Court has also pondered over the chances of setting right the anomaly by restricting the intervention to a minimum number of posts. But what is obvious and unavoidable is the cascading effect that the exercise of reallotment would throw up. Moreover, when this Court has held that the process of rotation, in accordance with the rules and guidelines are required to commence to the post of President, from the category Scheduled Tribe in accordance with the descending order, as per the Table Appendix-III of Scheduled Tribes, thereafter followed by Scheduled Castes and thereafter Backward classes, this Court would be guilty of permitting violation, if adjustments are permitted to be made and restrict the changes to the minimum. If such exercise of adjustment is permitted to be made, challenges of violation of the rules are bound to follow. 43. Before parting with these writ petitions, this Court deems it necessary to sound a word of caution. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Division Bench, while dealing with the appeals arising out of the interim order passed by this Court, has expressed its anguish at the manner in which notifications are issued giving scope for challenge and the Municipal Councils being without the respective Heads from August 2018. It was therefore suggested that reservations to the posts of President and Vice- President to the next term should be made immediately after the notifications are issued for the present term. It was therefore suggested that reservations to the posts of President and Vice- President to the next term should be made immediately after the notifications are issued for the present term. However, the exact words used by Hon'ble Division Bench could not be captured by this Court, since a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the Writ Appeal is not available as on date. Even earlier, this Court has expressed its anguish and directed the State Government to issue the notifications atleast six months prior to the date of elections to the post of President and Vice-President. This Court would go a step further and call upon the State Government/Legislature to contemplate handing over the responsibility of notifying the reservations to an independent agency like the Election Commission. By doing so, the State Government can atleast stay clear of allegations of mala fides. 44. As a result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed. (ii) All the three impugned notifications dated 08.10.2020 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) A writ of mandamus ensues to the respondent-State to notify reservation to the post of President and Vice-President in all the Municipal Councils including Town Municipalities within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) A writ of mandamus ensues to the respondent-State to follow the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice- President) Election Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time and the guidelines in Government Order dated 11.09.2020, while undertaking the exercise of rotation of reservation to the posts of President and Vice-President. (v) The respondent-State shall maintain the worksheets and notes prepared while undertaking the exercise of rotation. Proceedings shall be drawn up in terms of the guidelines in Government Order dated 11.09.2020 as per Clause (xi)(e) to indicate the reasons for any deviation. (v) The respondent-State shall maintain the worksheets and notes prepared while undertaking the exercise of rotation. Proceedings shall be drawn up in terms of the guidelines in Government Order dated 11.09.2020 as per Clause (xi)(e) to indicate the reasons for any deviation. (vi) After notifying the new lists, if the State Government finds that there is no change in the reservation made to the posts of President and Vice-President in more than 50% of the cases as found in the impugned notifications, liberty is reserved to the State Government to file a writ petition to avoid holding of fresh elections in all such cases and to seek a declaration that elections in all such Municipal Councils are deemed to be held, results declared and may continue to function in accordance with law. In order to enable such declaration, the elections held consequent to the impugned notifications and declaration of results shall stand in suspended animation till calendar of events are announced following the fresh notifications or till a declaration is made by this Court, whichever is earlier. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, all pending Interlocutory applications stand disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.