1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA [CASE NUMBER] (LB-ELE) a/w W.P.Nos.45130/2012, 45269/2012, 45154/2012, 44975-44976/2012, 44949/2012, 44651/2012, 44621/2012, 44557/2012, 44399-44792/2012, 47974/2012, 47915/2012, 47580/2012, 47026/2012, 46573/2012, 46506/2012, 42775/2012, 44396-44397/2012, 47727/2012, 45440/2012, 45565/2012, 45602/2012, 45628/2012, 45733-45737/2012, 45993- 45994/2012, 47801-47802/2012 & 47509/2012 W.P.NO.44458/2012 BETWEEN: LAKSHMI DEVI W/O MURAGESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER, KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULAMBI VILLAGE, TALUK:HONALLI DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219. PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S.HOSAMATH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 001. 2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. 2 3 THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION K S C M F BUILDING, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 52. 4. SECRETARY KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KULAMBI VILLAGE TQ:HONALLI, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE AND ETC. W.P.No.45130/2012 BETWEEN: 1. N MAHESHWARAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 2. S G DUSHYANTAPPA S/O S G CHANNABASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 3. B K VAMADEVAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA AGED 47 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 4. THIPPESWAMY NAIK S/O ONKARA NAIK AGED 51 YEARS, R/O NARENAHALLI VILLAGE, 3 JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 5. RAJU S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED 39 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 6. S K MANJUNATH S/O KARIYAPPA AGED 41 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 7. SHEKHARAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 8. C G NAGARAJ S/O GONAPPA AGED 36 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 9. CHANDRAMMA W/O MARULAPPA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 10. ASHA W/O YALLAPPA AGED 30 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 11. SHOBHA W/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, R/O MUGGIDARAGIHALLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 12. BASAMMA W/O K S REVANASIDDAPPA AGED 35 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 4 13. SHARADA BAI W/O RAJANAIK AGED 40 YEARS, R/O NARASIMHA RAJA PURA, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. 14. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED 42 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. (ALL ARE MEMBERS OF HALEKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.) PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -01. 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-01. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DIST., DAVANGERE-577 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. W.P.NO.45269/2012 BETWEEN: SMT K.P.RATHNAMMA W/O K.P.RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 5 PRESIDENT OF TALUK PANCHAYATH OF HONNALI TALUK, R/O KULAGATTA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEP.OF PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATH RAJ) AND EX-OFFICE JOINT SECRETARY DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 001. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH HONALLI HONALLI TALUK, DAVANGER DISTRICT-577 215. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1- 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT INSIST FOR HER RESIGNATION BEFORE EXPIRING TERM OF TWENTY MONTHS. W.P.NO.45154/2012 BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O SRI NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT A CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI 6 CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY M/s S.RAJU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, K.S.C.M.F.(BACKSIDE) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 52. 4 THE TAHSILDAR CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. 5 KUMBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, 2 & 4 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.09.12 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST, HASSAN AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44975-44976/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SMT SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O AMARANARAYANA PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 7 2 SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O MAHADEV PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.GANGI REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ELECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR - 563 101. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE ANNEXURE-H DATED 09.10.12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR. W.P.NO.44949/2012 BETWEEN: S.B.ROOPA W/O SRI NANDISH AGED 26 YEARS HARANAHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR M/S ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND 8 PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 3 THE TAHSILDAR ARASIKERE TALUK ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. 4 HARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARASIKERE TALUK, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERTAINS TO THE HARANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH. W.P.NO.44651/2012 BETWEEN: SMT RENUKAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS MEMBER, JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, R/O HOUSE NO.41, VEERAVVA NAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE, JANAKAL POST, HOSADURGA TALUK -577 527. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND : 1 KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KSCMF BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. REP.BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER. 9 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA -577 501. 3 THE RETURNING OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH ELECTION OF JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND THE TAHASILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G. FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. W.P.NO.44621/2012 BETWEEN: SRI G.B.PALEGOWDA S/O G.S.BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. 10 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4 SECRETARY AREHALLI GRAMA PACHAYATH AREHALLI, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 & 3 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ANNEXURE-L DATED 09.10.12 MADE IN NO.ELC.CR.82-6/12-13 ISSUED BY THE R3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS AREHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AND ETC. W.P.NO.44557/2012 BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKABYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE BYLAPPA NO.169, BHYRESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMIPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 097. PETITIONER (BY M/S S.B.MUKKANNAPPA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 01. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BANGALORE DISTRICT. BANGALORE - 560 001. 11 3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KGID BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. REP.BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RESERVATION FOR SECOND TERM FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT GENERAL (L) & VICE PRESIDENT BCM (A) TO SOMASHETTIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44399-44792/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI O.G.BASAVARAJ S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MARADIDEVIGERE VILLAGE IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 2. SRI K.J.KENCHAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KALAHALLI, IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION BY ITS COMMISSIONER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 12 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 ) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 09.10.12 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON 10.10.12 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. W.P.NO.47974/2012 BETWEEN: SRI T.BALAPPA S/O AJJAGALA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MEMBER, THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH R/O THORANAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501. PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.SRIDHARA & SRI R.SHASHIDHAR, ADVS.) AND : 1 THE SECRETARY THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 501. 3 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CUNNINGUM ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3) 13 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. W.P.NO.47915/2012 BETWEEN: SMT GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O SRI V.SRINIVASAMURTHY MEMBER OF MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT THIRUMALENEHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 560 049. PETITIONER (BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009. 3 MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY MANDUR POST, MANDUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049. 4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER No.8, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4) 14 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. W.P.NO.47580/2012 BETWEEN: Sri M.K.LAKSHMAN NAIK S/O KALA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O ALAGHATTA LAMBANI TANDA BALLALA SAMUNDRA VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-587333. PETITIONER (BY SRI M.PRAKASH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 597 333. 4 THE SECRETARY BALLALA SAMUNDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 597 333. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) 15 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. W.P.NO.47026/2012 BETWEEN: H.D.KRISHNAPPA S/O DYAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HANIYURU VILLAGE DODDATUMKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 561 203. PETITIONER (BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE. 3 SONNENAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.2012 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. 16 W.P.NO.46573/2012 BETWEEN: MR.KUNDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE ARAVAPPA R/AT KATANAYAKANAPURA VIDYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. PETITIONER (BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 3 H.GOLLAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK DISTRICT. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. W.P.NO.46506/2012 BETWEEN: SRI S.OMKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SABALADA GIDDAPPA @ HANUMAPPA 17 R/O THOPURU MALIGE VILLAGE & POST - 577 524. CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI K.K.VASANTH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA 577 501. 2 THE DYAMMAVVANAHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DYAMAVVANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. REP.BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY. 3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR RECORDS No.ELEC.CR.82-3/12-13 DATED 09.10.12 ON THE FILE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT AND ETC. W.P.NO.42775/2012 BETWEEN: SRI D M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MALLESHAPPA .M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT DUMMI, 1ST BLOCK, DUMMI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI L.SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.) 18 AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501. 3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44396-44397/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SRI D.R.BASAVARAJ S/O D.S.RAJASEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/OF HIREHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 2 SRI M.B.MUDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O CHIKKAHALLI, BYADAREDDIHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. PETITIONERS (BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER BY ITS COMMISSIONER 19 Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. W.P.No.47727/2012 BETWEEN: SRINIVASA M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 38 YEARS LAXMI SAGARA VILLAGE NERALURU POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI SUMANA BALIGA.M. ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THIIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. 20 W.P.No.45440/2012 BETWEEN : 1. R RAVINDRA S/O M.V. MUNIYAPPA AGED 49 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF N. HOSAHALLI BAYALA NARASAPURA POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 114 2. H N DHARMESH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED 43 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF KONDARAHALLI NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 114 PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION K.C.M.F. BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER 21 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOCATION / RESERVATION OF ADHYAKSHA IN FAVOUR OF GENERAL LADY IN RESPECT OF NANDAGUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 12.10.2012. W.P.No.45565/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O JOGISIDDAIAH AGED 40 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER NO.205, HANCHYA VILLAGE RAMMANAHALLI POST MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008 PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE 22 R2, VIDE ANN-C INSOFAR AS THE ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION TO THE POST OF PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT OF HANCHYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN MYSORE TALUK. W.P.No.45602/2012 BETWEEN : H.C. JAGADISH S/O H CHANNAPPA AGE:43 YEARS R/O PALLAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK DAVANGERE DIST. PETITIONER (BY SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR & SRI C SHIVAKUMAR, ADVS.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE-577 001 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R3, INSOFAR AS RESERVING THE POST OF ADHYAKSHA OF PALLAGATTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. 23 W.P.No.45628/2012 BETWEEN : SRI C.S. BYRAJU S/O SANNAKALAIAH AGED 47 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER CHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANX-B INSOFAR AS ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION OF THE POST OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ICHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN HOLENARASIPURA TALUK. W.P.Nos.45733-45737/2012 BETWEEN : 1. SRI S T CHANDREGOWDA S/O S S THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O SIRAGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, 24 CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. 2. SRI. D S LAKSHMANA S/O SHANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O DUMMIGERE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. 3. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O JAYAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAMMADHALLI MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. 4. SRI. ANAND S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KESUVINAMANE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101 5. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SATHEESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SIRANGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. PETITIONERS (BY M/S. A SHIVARAMA & ASSTS., ADVS.) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR DIST., CHICKMAGALUR-577 101. 25 3. THE SECRETARY MUGATHIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALDUR, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R2 DATED 17.10.12 VIDE ANNX-L SOFAR AS R3 GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED & DIRECT THE R2 TO MODIFY THE LIST DATED 17.10.12 ANNX-L IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW U/S 44 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT 1993 AND RULE 4 TO APPENDIX VIII OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ RULES AS PER DIRECTIONS/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ETC., W.P.Nos.45993-45994/2012 BETWEEN : 1. H K PRAKASH S/O GIRIBASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHIKKADANA HALLI MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DIST 2. R KUMAR S/O RAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT PETITIONERS (BY SRI NOVA BETHANIA S, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 26 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570 005 3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM DIST. COMMISSIONER MYSORE, PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER & QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C & ANNEXURE TO IT DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C1 PASSED BY THE R2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO MANUGANANHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 & 243-D OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC. W.P.Nos.47801-47802/2012 BETWEEN : 1. K NARAYANAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577516 2. H BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O REVANAPPA, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577516 PETITIONERS (BY SRI K DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADV.) 27 AND : 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 501 2. THE TAHSILDAR HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 503 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 4. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.10.12, GAZETTED ON 16.10.12 ISSUED BY R1 RESERVING THE POST OF ADYAKSHA FOR BHANUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF BACKWARD CLASS-A (WOMAN) VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC. W.P.No.47509/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER GRAMA PANCHAYATH HULIKATTE, RESIDING AT KAREYAGALA VILLAGE DAVANEGERE DISTRICT PETITIONER (BY M/S L SRINIVAS BABU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) 28 AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHARAJ M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANEGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-575 205 3. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-01. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANN-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESERVE THE POST OF PRESIDENT IN FAVOUR OF "SCH TRIBE (WOMEN)". THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING : ORDER
The petitioners in all these petitions are assailing the reservations and the allocation of seats to different categories for the posts of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in the ensuing elections to the Grama Panchayat. In this regard, the reservations have been made to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and the BCM category of which 80% has been reserved for BCM-A and 20% to BCM-B. The remaining posts are allocated for general category. Among the said categories, there is vertical reservation of 50% of the posts in all categories for women which is as per the requirement.
2. The grievance of the petitioners however is based on the allegation of improper rotation and allocation for the different categories which has been effected by the notifications issued by the Deputy Commissioners impugned in the respective cases. The case put forth is that the reservation and rotations are to be made as provided under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('the Act' for short). The proviso to the said section provides that the offices reserved shall be allotted by rotations of the reserved offices to the different Grama Panchayats for the posts to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] when the same are allotted. It is therefore contended that in the impugned notifications, reservations and allotment made to the different Grama Panchayats would indicate that there are repetitions of categories presently allotted as compared to the earlier elections and therefore, the requirement in the proviso has not been adhered to. For instance, the grievance in [CASE NUMBER] is that the petitioner is the member of Kulambi Grama Panchayath, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District and belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category. It is his case that the reservation has not been made from 1993 onwards. The petitioner in the other petitions have comparable grievance that the category to which they belong has not been allotted presently and it is alleged that the other categories are being repeated.
3. While opposing the contentions put forth in these petitions, the respondents though have filed objection statements in few of the writ petitions, more particularly in [CASE NUMBER], apart from justifying the notification therein that there are only two ST seats reserved in the entire Honnali Taluk which has to be rotated among 47 Grama Panchayats of that Taluk and therefore, such representation would not be possible, have further contended in all the petitions that there is a bar contemplated under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against entertaining the instant petitions and therefore the petitions should be dismissed on that count. It is also the contention that even otherwise, the law is well settled that in election matters, this Court while exercising the discretion under [SECTION] of the [ACT] should be slow in interfering with the notifications since the same would ultimately delay the process of elections, if such petitions are entertained. In the instant case, considering that large number of Grama Panchayats are there in each Taluk, any change effected even in one panchayath would have cascading effect and would hamper the process of election.
4. In that view, the said question require consideration at the outset, even before adverting to the particular instances which have been raised in the instant petitions to contend that there has been repetitions or non-representation while reserving the posts.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent- State and Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the [ENTITY] and perused the papers.
6. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate General has made reference to the provisions contained in [SECTION] of the [ACT] which reads as hereunder:
"243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters:-
Notwithstanding anything in this [ACT]-
(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 [SECTION]K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat 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."
7. In that light, the learned Additional Advocate General would rely on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner vs. Smt.[ENTITY] & ors (W.A.No.3065/2010 and connected appeals disposed of on 28.09.2010) to which I was a member to contend that the objection raised to oppose the writ petition in that case by relying on [SECTION] was held justified. It is further pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. [ENTITY] (AIR 2000 SC 2979) has held that this Court will not interfere with the election process.
8. Having noticed the provision contained in [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is also to be noticed that in the instant case, the election notification has not yet been issued and the calendar of events is not declared nor is it a situation of challenging any election already held. Furthermore, the petitioners are not assailing any law relating to elections as stated in [SECTION]. Therefore, the provision as contained in [SECTION] would indicate that the bar as contended would not apply in the instant case. However, since the decision in the case of Smt. [ENTITY] & Ors (supra) has been relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, another decision of the same Division Bench of this Court to which also I was a member requires to be referred to. In that decision in the case of [ENTITY] vs. G.Sannappa and others (2011(1) AIR Kar 820) the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
"6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters under [SECTION] of the [ACT], can be divided into two parts. The bar under the first part (under clause (a) of the said Article) pertains to a challenge prior to the actual process of election, whereas, the bar under the second part (under clause (b) of the said Article), pertains to a challenge on the culmination of the election process. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, the claim raised by respondent being before the commencement of the electoral process, it can fall only under the first part referred to above, i.e., within the ambit of [SECTION].
7. A closer examination of [SECTION] reveals, that the bar contemplated under [SECTION] of the [ACT], pertains to a challenge to a legal provision/legislative enactment relating to delimitation of constituencies, or alternatively, the validity of any law relating to the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under [SECTION]K of the [ACT]. In so far as the controversy before us is concerned, the same does not fall in any of the aforesaid two classifications, and as such, must for all intentions and purposes be considered to be beyond the scope and purview of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. We, therefore, find no merit in the first submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant."
9. It would therefore be clear that the Division Bench has held that in the circumstance where the notification relating to the rotation of reserved posts has been challenged before the issue of notification for election, the bar would not apply. In that view, the decision in the case of Smt. [ENTITY] and others (supra) relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General would not be of assistance since the Division Bench by the subsequent order dated 03.12.2010 by making detailed reference to [SECTION] has held that it would not act as a bar. The subsequent decision of the Division Bench would therefore be more apt. The decision in the case of [ENTITY] would not be relevant insofar as considering the question of bar as contemplated under [SECTION] though it could be relevant for the second part of consideration by this Court which would be made herein subsequently.
10. Therefore, keeping the said aspects in view and considering the fact that in the instant case the petitioners have approached this Court before the issue of notification for the elections by only assailing the notification made towards the reservation for the posts of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] to different Grama Panchayats, it would not fall in the purview of the circumstance indicated in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Therefore, the bar as contemplated under [SECTION] as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General would not apply to the instant facts in these case.
11. Though I have arrived at the above conclusion, it still needs to be considered as to whether the examination of each of the cases on the merits of the contentions raised therein would result in interference with the election process so as to hamper with the progress of election. In such circumstance, whether this Court should refrain from exercising the discretion available under [SECTION] of the [ACT] also needs consideration.
12. In that regard, no doubt the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] connected petitions disposed of on 14.02.2011) and in the case of Doddanarasimha Reddy vs. The Secretary, [ENTITY] and ors ( ILR 1999 Kar 2831) to contend that in similar circumstance this Court has interfered with the notifications relating to reservation and rotation of posts and as such there should be no impediment in the instant cases also. The case of [ENTITY] vs. The State of Karnataka and ors (ILR 2005 Kar 2051) is relied to point out that when there is repetition of the reservations, this Court has held that the reserved posts are to be rotated and cannot be repeated.
13. First and foremost, there can be no dispute with regard to the fact that the reservations and rotation is to be made as contemplated under [SECTION] of the Act. The provision contained in [SECTION] is as hereunder.
"44. Election of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]
(1) Every Grama Panchayat Shall, [within one month from the date of publication of names of elected members under [SECTION]], [or immediately before the expiry of term of office of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]] choose two members of the Grama Panchayat to be respectively, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
In the event of occurrence of any vacancy by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise in the office of [ENTITY] or [ENTITY], the Grama Panchayat shall choose another member to be the [ENTITY] or the [ENTITY], as the case may be.
(2) Subject to the general or special order of the [state Election Commission], the Deputy Commissioner shall reserve.-
(a) such number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of Grama Panchayats in the State for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of the offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State.
[x x x x x]
(b) such number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of the Grama Panchayats, which shall as nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in the State for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes:
["But the number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] reserved for the backward classes under this clause shall be so determined, that the total number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes under the clause (a) and the Backward classes under this clause shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of the Grama Panchayats in the State."] [Provided that out of the offices reserved under this clause eighty percent of the total number of such offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category 'A' and the remaining twenty percent of the offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category 'B':
Provided further that if no person falling under category 'A' is available, the offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category 'B' and vice versa],
(c) not less than [fifty percent] of the total number of offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of Grama Panchayats in the State from each of the categories which are reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and of those which are non-reserved, for women:
Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation to different Grama Panchayats;
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for purposes of reservation of offices under this section shall commence from the first election to be held after the commencement of the [ACT]."
14. Therefore, keeping the said provisions in view, the Election Commission has issued the notification dated 05.09.2012 indicating the guidelines with regard to the reservation and rotations to be provided and effected in respect of the entire State. The number of the reserved posts to be rotated in the Grama Panchayats of each Taluk is also prescribed therein. Based on the said guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner would have to make the notification which has been presently made in respect of the different panchayaths in each Taluk and it is such notification which has been impugned herein. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, at this stage, it is seen that the guidelines are provided by the Election Commission and by the subsequent notification by the Deputy Commissioner the allocations are made. Whether that would call for interference is the question ? No doubt, in the circumstance which arose in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had interfered with the notifications which had been issued therein when it was found that the reservation made and rotated was not in order. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that in the case of [ENTITY], though this Court had laid down that there should be rotation with regard to the posts, this Court did not however choose to quash the notification instead it was held that in any event the petitioner therein could have contested from the general category. Therefore, it is clear that this Court would have to keep the overall circumstance in the background of the factual matrix and consider to what extent this Court should exercise its discretion.
15. It is in that light, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [ENTITY] referred supra becomes relevant to consider the circumstances in which this Court should exercise its discretion to interfere. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two [ACT] Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove:-
1) If an election, (the term 'election' being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.
2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to "calling in question an election" if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election.
Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election.
3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law.
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 a 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 the Court.
5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of [SECTION] but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material."
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.
17. In fact the guidelines which have been indicated therein and referred to by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of [ENTITY] & Others ([CASE NUMBER] and connected matters disposed of on 18.08.2010) has been pressed into service by the learned Additional Advocate General. This Court on referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that though the notifications relating to reservation and rotation which had been challenged could be interfered, that would interfere with the election process and as such the Court should be slow to entertain the petitions.
18. Further, the learned Additional Advocate General has brought to the notice of this Court that another learned Judge of this Court while considering the challenge to the notifications making similar reservations and rotations during the current year in respect of the posts of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for Taluk Panchayats in the case of [PRECEDENT] and connected petitions) disposed of on 23.11.2012 was of the view that this Court would not interfere with the said notifications. While holding so, this Court has also taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and ors (AIR 1952 SC
64). The learned Judge had also taken note of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on 22.11.2012 indicating the manner in which the transparency would be maintained in future by giving opportunity to the parties who may be aggrieved by such notifications. The relevant portion of the affidavit which has been extracted reads as hereunder:
"I say that in order to maintain transparency in giving an opportunity to the parties aggrieved by he notification, notifying the reservation of seats, such notification will be published well in advance i.e., atleast 45 days before the expiry of term of office of the [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of Taluk Panchayaths.
I say that [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides reservation for the offices of the [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of Taluk Panchayats.
I say that certain developments have taken place which have bearing on the reservation and rotation of seats to be notified by the State i.e., i) change in number of Districts; ii) Change in number of Taluks; iii) Declaration of population figures from time to time; iv) change in SC/ST ranking of taluks; v) amendment to [SECTION] of the said Act, making reservation in favour of women from 33% to 50%; vi) the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.[ENTITY]'s case reported in 2010, [SECTION] and also the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by Hon'ble Court in [CASE NUMBER] and connected writ petitions; vii) effect of striking down of proviso to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation to the Offices of the [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of the Taluk Panchayaths) Rules, 2005 and viii) amendment to 2005 Rules, making State as an unit for the purpose of rotating the reservation of seats to the offices of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
In view of these factors and also various other factors viz., the cascading effect of various actions committed earlier or of giving effect to the provisions of the Act, it is practically impossible to make reservation with mathematical precision or accuracy."
19. Therefore, keeping in view the position of law and the fact situation herein, it has to be considered by this Court as to whether in the present circumstance this Court should interfere with the notifications.
20. First and foremost, as noticed, in respect of the reservation of posts for [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in the Taluk Panchayats, this Court while considering the similar grievances was of the view that the same does not call for interference. Secondly, in the instant facts, it is seen that the elections to be held to the post of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of the Grama Panchayat is in respect of 5628 Grama Panchayats. The said Grama Panchayats are spread over 30 Districts of the State and the total number of Grama Panchayats in a Taluk are taken into consideration for the purpose of reserving and rotating the posts among the Grama Panchayats in the Taluk. For instance, in Bangalore North Taluk alone, there are 30 Grama Panchayats regarding which the number of posts to be reserved have been indicated in the guidelines of the Election Commission so as to provide the seats for Scheduled Castes-8, Scheduled Tribe-1, BCM 'A' -5, BCM 'B'-1 and the general seats-15. Further, the reservation for the women candidates among them is shown at 50%. The number of such Grama Panchayats varies from 7 being the least and 65 being the most number of Grama Panchayats in a Taluk. Therefore, in such circumstance, when large number of Grama Panchayats are to elect the [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and a clear guideline has been issued by the Election Commission and the notifications have thereafter been issued by the Deputy Commissioners in this regard, at this stage, even though the elections have not been notified to all the Grama Panchayats, the grievance put forth by the petitioners herein if examined and ultimately the concerned Deputy Commissioners were to be directed to issue fresh notification rectifying the errors if any, the same would have to be redone by looking into the reservations which have been made in respect of all the Grama Panchayats in the Taluk, as otherwise the displacement of the present reservation and rotation is likely to cause imbalance in the allocation of reservation and rotations which have already been made in respect of the other Grama Panchayats in the same Taluk. That in turn is likely to give rise to fresh grievance to the members of the other Grama Panchayath, which would remain a vicious circle.
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 [ENTITY] in my view cannot be scrutinized 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 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] 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 that the 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. Moreso in the present circumstance, if such exercise is undertaken by this Court, when the earlier period of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] 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.
22. Before parting, the reference made by the learned Additional Advocate General to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Gramapanchayat [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]) Elections Rules, 1995 whereunder the election petitions could be instituted is also to be noticed. In that regard, an election petition to be presented under [SECTION] would certainly include the challenge to the election of the elected [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] as the case may be, if such challenge is laid on the ground that the petitioners who were entitled to contest based on appropriate reservation/rotation have been denied such opportunity. The said contention will be a ground to be examined in the election petition in individual cases. Therefore, the right of the petitioners in any event would not be defeated.
23. One other contentions raised by the learned counsel on behalf of some of the petitioners seeking intervention of the Court is that there being no appeal against the manner of reservations being made by the notifications, the reservation and rotation made thereof by the Deputy Commissioners even if arbitrary would remain unchallenged. In this regard, first and foremost the same would be available for challenge in an election petition has been noticed. Even otherwise, during the earlier part of this order, this Court has noticed and extracted the affidavit undertaking which had been filed on behalf of the State Government in the case relating to the Election of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] to the Taluk Panchayats. To allay the apprehensions of the petitioners in that regard in future, a direction is issued to the State Government to adopt the same procedure as undertaken to be done in respect of the elections relating to Taluk Panchayats while notifying the reservation/rotation in respect of the elections of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] posts in the Grama Panchayats as well. Hence, the said affidavit undertaking is treated as an undertaking in this regard also to which the State Government shall remain bound.
24. Keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions do not call for further examination and they are accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy in accordance with law. No Costs.
JUDGE akc/bms