IN 'THE HIGH CO'U'RT OF KAR NATAKA AT BAN
£)A'I'I5:{) Tms THE) 23% DAY OF JULY %::i;%{:<;:' _
PRESENT_w-_
'1'1s~11:3 HONELE MR. 9.1). DiNAKA}§A3$I; %cam-
AN
'l'H¥:) H(}N'l':3Ll1£1 M1g.Jt;¢$*r1{:;:: A..s.Bo1'»~"rm NA
WRIT PB2'I'I'i'ION N6'. ' ~.1:::.1+;:E";f1'1+;)_1\2--- _N'0i3. 2u:g.34g'2c:;9' (LE3-BM?-PIL) &
20.8iS3}!()9 (1.33-5-RES:PB..)
W.P.N€;f.V
BH1'w£;E:'NVV 5- " Z
B K xz9:NKA'fEsi1 310 Ai;A'Vf'1?:Z {:3 N KRISHNAPPA
AGES ABOUT 40=YEARS
.' 'V V' R1 M~i'0;.A'-L15;%-- 4TH c:R't:>":~';:'s
KASHiRAM --H{3¥JSE BUILDING
_C(:¢O'PF;VR.{¥I'IV'=E', €3OCIE'FY
A~2r€;s:§e
" " $R;;*S vasumsv, A;:>V. 3
'
CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT GP' K.A17€§\3fifl'fi£{A
i
VIDHANA SOUDHA, VHJHANA VEEDHI
BANGALGRE 560 001
2 13335; PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 'six; .
G{;)VE§2NMEN'i', URBAN :)2:vE;Lmé;sd:;N"'~.1? '1 'A v '
DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA T ~ '
BANGALORE --- 360 cm _
3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY cd'h{1:M:.ss:ore.;§:RAT
BANGALORE URBAN, K; (it_.iif(;35A_i')=._» _
BANGALORE -- 55;: '£399 '
4 THE c1\a;MIss;oNr;«:R-;' A;3E2',ui%::A*r.-3;§;a§f-56a) RESPONDENTS
{BY sm; HA§§.§:iAI{i:;AL£,i »f§DV.GEN ERAL
–v..v.w1:m siym MLQUFEER AKBAR, AGA)
‘I’l’1IS-_WRI’l”V {S i’3’l’LI*3D UNDER ARFICLES 2126
82’. 227′ Of? THE COf’~3S’fI’i’U’l”EO.fW OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
TC}: QUASB *ANX’~»A GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DT.
45.2009 MC~}§IFY{I§iG”v_ ‘T’HE GUISELINEZS PRESCRIBENG
_ . AVERAGE POPULATION TC) EACH WARD AS A \fEULA'[‘iO£’\i
‘ *«.km£~;__<::0;;sIs*mUTz01s:——ism INDIA; "re QUASH AN}<.-E DRAW!'
fDE115IE%1I'Fz'§l'EC§'f3._ NOTIFICATION DT. 17.6.2009 VIOLATING
":m«: ;e".R"i?l ;3LE} 16:1. IN "'£'Hl:i MA'°l"l'!:'.i'< R'I§;SI:ZRVA"i'I{}'f€ cw ESEETS
im*S_::. 3:-$*%::,,AN{';:vBAc:{wAR:) cmssgs; m<;:.,
W.i'.__fl0. g"§*__'gg:-4109
' V ._1;3§;Tw BEN. :
‘KP RAMESH S/’O LATE} I?’ RU[)RAMU§xVi’HY
_ A{}B3?2:ABOUT 49 YEARS
FQRMER MAYGR, EMF’
~I’ri-Ci. 144, P’ARVAT§–IIPURAM
J;
or
II
LALIBAGH mm’ ROAD
BANGALORE — 550 004 }«”I-:,”i’I”l’I(I}.if.VV_lII:’-I5′
(BY SR1: PUTFIGE R RAMESH, ADV.)
AND:
1 THE STATE 01:’ KARNATAKA _
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECREETARY ‘
£)EP’1′.OFURBAN DEVELOPMENT’ ~ V-
M.S. BUILDINGS ‘
Dr. 8.12. AMBEUKAR Rom)
BANGALORE — 569 ‘G01 5
2 BRUHATH BANGALQR2; r§iAI§Ar4IéGI£§§A’-~?AL1;~:E
BY ITS CGMMISSIDNVER: ‘ ‘ ‘ I
N;’R’;TvsQij;AR”£;; ” _ .
E..ANGAL{§.§2E,V_–*«s56-QI0€}.i2 . ;
3 *rr§1::.,ELE:c*i*1_oN ‘CO’?JIi9ii’SSION
STATE,{)P’. KA.RN.A’mI<A
. M 1.8, CU.I\INI'NGH'AM ROAD
'-§BANf}ALOR'E. ,–_5'e.0 052 RESPONBENTS
~ .. ,{Bisr;ssR1,£ IASHOK HARANAHALL; A£)V.GEN ERAL
_ " ffW~ITH SR1: NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
T 'JIIRIT PE'i'I'I'I(}N IS FILED UNDER ARYICLES 226
22'?' ~O§<';.'I'HE CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA, WITH A ?RAYER
_'I'O:,QU.%SH THE NOTIFICATION DT. 1'?'.6.09, AS AT ANNJ3,
'<.IS.SUEI3 EY THE R1; DIRECT THE R3, TC} HULK} THE
ELECETIONS Ti) THE R2, WITHOUT FUWFHER L088 'OF
" TIME; IKITIATE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
I -P-f:}RSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR NCYI' COMPLYING WITH THE
SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THIS COURT.
W.P.NO. 20863 ( 09
BETWEEN :
P SUBBMAH
AGEB ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO. 98, VENKATAKA swam’ LAY0m'”‘ . .’
11TH cmss, EX–SERVICEMEN STR=EE’1′.._ A is ‘
SUBBAYANAPALYA EXTENSION ‘ 1 ‘
ms. NAGAR-POST ” . ” . ;
BANGALORE — 560 033 ” ” Ie’§I4;,”v-;f;’:’*1<")'r~';V;;:R
{av SR1: L K SRINIVAS MURTHVY-~,– }XI:)v';L»..;;*o:e ..
M/S: LAKSHMI HQLLA LAW 53*.'-;c;§;1'A3fEs, ADVS)
AN3:
1 CH1.§;F”s3.;é’c%%§:rARY ” V
(;T§OVERNjM_ENv§_ 015* ‘i§ARNAi*ARA
vzpvuama m_1A,.TVv:.D’:~mNA v1::x::1::»1~:;
BANGALGREV $5090-1.’
2 THE F5RiNCIPAL s3E(;§E’I’ARY TO
3 GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEZVELOPMENI’
‘:DELPAR’FMEN’i2**’v’iKASA soumm
1’ ~ BANCrAL£)RE — 560 00:
fIx’H E:”‘i’:§F’EiC{AL DEPUTY COMMISSEONER
A ‘ BA£§($A_£f€3RE URBAN, K C} ROAD
B£gNG:A”LORE — 559 009
THECGMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE
V MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE
V ‘ VIESANGALORE —- 560 001 RESPQNDENTS
(BY SR1: ASHOK HARANAHALLI ADV.GE?3NERAL
WITH SR1: NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
$
‘pa
rs
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AR’I’If;’_.LE3S’£%§%6″ V.
85 227 OF THE: CONSTITUTION 014’ INDIA, w;’rH–aA PRP;’fP3i£…_ ‘ T.
TO: QUASH ANX–B, Tm: GOVT. ORDER D.T.vjj4.5.n9..j
Monmruve THE C3’rUIDELI’NE3S Pi§ES(3RlB}’N’G–.e’jAVERG1r::.
POPULATION To EACH WARD; QUAs:~s_ ANNr¥3;«._nRAFT
DELIMFFATION NOTIFICATION DT.’»,17.6.’0.9’, F.S’~\'”IOLAfF.§V’h”3e_*
AR’l’i()LE 16 c:u«”1’m<: CONS'§'I'i"L_J'i'l()N 'f__)F"!_i'~i D1A;'_§:;*c.,'~
These Petitions coming'v–ve.'§$i:, for" éay,
$1.8. BOPANNA.J., de'iivered_H1;fieVft}§<3w§1'1g.;vv VF
Since the basic ..f§i1ree petitions
is with regarc: :%i'e}i"1ki:itei§ti(::}1iV"n£1tfiiCation N'0.UD£)
59 Mi;R . 5 dated 17.05.2009, the
petitions 'heard together. Accordingly,
A L'-also eoneigiered and disposed by this common
cider, .VV.V'E'£1e._ 0t31er questions raised in the respective
' . V ceursc. éfxliis order.
eepéfetely woulé be aclverted to during the
V
AA Sri Sfifasucieva, Sri P.R.Ra11i1esh and Sri
— Murthy, leained couasel appearing for the
”
In
petitioners and Sri Ashok Haranahafli, ‘
General along with Ms.N’il0Vufer-. ‘Airerrfiee.-VI.’}eé:ri:}ed..A
Government Advocate and Sri
Counsei for the respondents perL1sed:ft;1é–;Vi5etii:ioI1 ”
papers. V =
3. The petjt.ioI1ers«-hf: tI:ge$e”V-pet,i’tiens claim to be
the residents of ‘- ” ‘Jpetitioner in
W.P.Nc;’.§(52’34{l3&3 ;l;” vHf(VV)I’II{1(‘3I’ mayor of the
Banga1eie’fx&éhar§:§gara–. faifke. The petitioners claim to
be aggrieved tAhe “‘”notifieati0ns issued by the
. “Gevem<' exit. to delimitation, increasing the
upwards and also with regard to the
ca1vjr1gV_voi'..i:11e wards with reference to the number
population inciuded in each of the warcis.
'Aecerédklg tn the petitioners, the population varies from
~»13000 in some Wards to 36000 ix} other wards and as
" such there is no reasonabie basis on vszhich the wards
'Q
have been carved out. The inciusion of, _
population in each of the wards MiVs_ eonte1*1d.£}:;i» '4
contrary to the provisions contaixied :iI1..S5eetionV"'2 o'i?g
the Karnataka Municipal CoV1fVporatio11s-ft Aeté ml)
Act' for short). The volume AVot"u:popu1afior1« in
the wards is also coiitende(iV ..:eor:ttrary to the
subsequent not3§j1:catioI;1jié'.V"' ' fl}
4. to *:’:–m{ o’j:1*u$~1+Imr *f¢en£em-;e:i on behaif of the
petitio1ze1fs’:s ” titie notifications are not
sustai:1able;”..si;t;.ce ‘reseI’vat.ioI1 has not been provided for
V’ .tt1eAordii1afiee amending Section 7 of the Act to
..o.19ioznbaer of wards is incomgetent being
cor:f,,ta1y»/ itaw. in so tar as the validity of the
“V’««___”-notificésotjon regarding delimitation of Wards, it is
A reonteiaded that the mm imum time prescribed therein
not been provided to enable the citizens to activeiy
V respond? ané therefore the entire process of deiimitatglon
$
‘I
of wards is not sustainable and is liable _
down.
5. On behalf of the res};>ondef;1;s.–deta1ie::£. ‘V
statement has been flied each a€:tioi*1 -.eoii1:ple3.ned
against is sought to be:j’u=stifiec1_.’VA %n’e1%’;rs”.Ht;y, itis”eoVz1tended
that the delixnitation has[be;e§iéjpn.e..irgsccordance with
the provisions Act any event, the
constitutit§13aI:iiméfi;§iiateis tli$it”tiie questions relating to
delimi£eit.io11 in questien in a Court of
law. 3A(ithoiH pi’ej’1′;.diee’ti3LVt¥1e same, it is contended that.
V’ notx’Vsti13’1ilate any time frame While issuing
_:__;.”‘;1e51i.*tfj.it{§itiox<1_ Beatification, but in order to make the
process ,tre:41sparent, in View of certain observations in
ea:I".fle-r litigation, a period of 15 days was no doubt
VA earlier, but the same has been amended by 21
V' gjbsequent notification dated 16.62.2009. Evexl with
Vregard to deiinxitation based on pepulatiorx, it is
comendsd that it has to be made in a _
manner and accord.i:£1g1y by »_notiiiii"a'ii¢¥_z'_;. "t:i;:1t.¢d_ " "
04.632009, the average populatidn
ané in this regard, excepfic»i1§"~3E;aveA'a1$c; b€¢ii":.}31*oI1if:icd '~ L'
considering that a large; begn ixiclugieci vam-1m
the Mahanagara Paliké' 3 strength is
lower in 'the vaiidity of
the ordix1a;iC;é}««..' considering the
nature: " £1 " fziattéar, the pmsidential
iI1strmfVfj_o1'i.'_a$ Iifsfio: required in the insiant
case. -. ' . -_
3 _§fi6u. in thé light of What has been czmtrzincisd, it is
I1<:2x:.'e_Vs*.;;3AI'j.r.A notice the provisian reiatxing to
de:€e:3;nii:2it§0r1T;;'t)i'wards which is contained in Section :21
'V of {£66 readsis hereunder:
fun?
,I
iii
21.”Detcr1:11inatiG11 of (wards) etc; (1) For .
eiection of{L1c)u;1c:i}(>rs (}overns1e:u; shall,’ :1b_tifi€:at:g>n,.
determine. «-
(a) the (Wards), into Whig}: tlié-sifgr §l1v_fitiefi1
and the extent of ca(:vui,1″«{1é\72:xV7c1s);’ .. I
(b) the number {).fir;e:a1::_s*. («’3H O.’i’£._(“_:’tZi. each Ward which
shall be 0116);… &
(c) tlrxcf fii§:g§:;e:::–91′ =s_eéts”1’r§s¢}vce1w5 for the Schedulad
A Q. Tribes, (iriackward
“”” H the (Wards) in which
‘:-:uVc.h neserved.
_§{.1-A) under sub–~se:ct101’1 (3.) shail be
.:”}::2:;Aii::=:<:i'v~-1&1'; qzinncésfiéfivin any court of iawgj
3 between the number of Councfllors to he
each (ward) and the population of that
' {'*i.*.?%lAI?'ii)V (XI5(".XX§X'.} shall so 1'81' as pizacticable be the same
n I 'ithxoilghout the city:
H (3) the State Gevemment may make mics i:i:>r the
purposes oi’su’h-section (13 and (‘2).”
:9
gm
*3
ll
‘7. The provision as extracted above _
for publication of notification ?.I’id.. 4tThe’ ‘A V’
therein. Firstly, with regard to the
to be made as per Section 2%i~o_1′ tho Act,j§;js'”fijo”‘(ioi1bt ” A
true that a notificatio11_§s abs issuodi by the
Government {hie on the
procedure I'<)1'§, t',o each of the
categories ',.i;h6 rotation thereoii
It is also notification does
not that itself does not
rendC1'_tIF1o Lfiotificafioii in law, in as much as by the
,.,6§id… :I1C1tifiC§f.i01'i; delimitation of the wards as
z:oI.;t'VeVn':1§}i-.'a,te:éi'i*'o._ i;i1 sub-section (2) has been mado
the population strength. Based on the
V'pop11ia£ti,_ot'n strength and the category, tho I'€S€IV£-H1101] is
_ 'i:o" made and the Government has indicated in the
..st,o.tement of objections that the disf:rib1;1tion of the
V reservation as roquimcl under S€C{.iQI}S 7(2) and '?(3} of
.x\%'*-
the Act wouid be made and the notification wiii,-.__’be
issued shorily. In this regard, reference is; .4
the notiiicaticn dated. 2 1.7.2009 whe:reunder’f:§uideIiiieeV_””_4’e ‘
are issued for ailotting I’€S6I’VaIfi0i’Ji§V for efithegiiiiesi Vcaé.tei’»..A
and scheduied tribes. ‘I’herefore, iiithezresei_§fatio.{1e–::e;i?eV
made on that basis and iS”e«e.V:§mblishegi ‘the
election process to be
suflicient compliance 1(-file Act.
8{~.wIi1_s{; centention that the ordmance
dated 4.6:i2*{3()9 f1ei”.competent in law ibr want of
u
V’ A insfrueuen as contemplated under Article
‘1 fienstitufion of India, as rightly contended
by Advocate General, the subject matter cf
oitiiiiazrice fans under eritiry 5 of 113: 11 of 7th
Tiiwiselfiefiiule. Further as rightly contended Article ‘243(i<2) of
ii _.V§;i"ie Constitmicn cf lnciia empowers the State
'V Government to make law for municipalities. As such,
i
an.
4′!
)3′
the contention of the petitioners in this ._i1~’c:-.~._. _
further discussion since the ordinance on the of it ” ”
is competent in law and the contentffirereof
to increase of number of Wound. ‘~ L’
hereinafter. J A A L
9. The major CV0fio1;rtCiI1ors to be elected from each ward and the
_p<§pu1ation of that ward shall so far as practicable be
' the same throughout the city. The provision in itself
$
'an
0
does not prescribe the population by number nor the
upper or lower limit. The Government at thefjflrst
instance by notification dated 18.08.2006 hsdif
guidelines with regard to the delimitation
urban Local Bodies and had
days calling for objections when notifications mlfiade .
thereunder. By the notification dated it was
indicated that not it would be
oonstitvéited; « nofifieattion dated 18.8.2008
was issued’ constitute 14′? wards.
Submuent’Iy,_:Vby. No. 4 of 2009, notified on
‘i it 20{)9*, ofiendment was made to Section 7 (1)(a)
for maximum number of wards at
thereto, the notification dated
°eeik nno4to6[a2oo9 was issued indicating reasons for the
neeeesity to increase the words from 147 to 198. In this
-regard, it is pointed out that the objections received to
V the proposal had been considered and since there am
an
‘4:
large Wards in the peripheral areas which ~
erstwhile 110 villages, there is K V’
presently. In that circumstance, ‘lit galso
that depending on the ” ll
proximity of ward level .govem’aiice;”administretion and
other factors, the decision increase the
wards and °p0pulation for
which a waitl also notified.
lien –. challenge to the population
ratio, it is that as already noticed, the
. V. °A.ct” no; conteiiifjlate the figure, but states that it
a practicable manner. Further, with
time limit provided for objecting to the
notificafion, though the learned counsel for the
petitioners contend that the time of 15 days as
contemplated under clause l4(iii) of the notification
dated 18.08.2006 was not provided, it is seen that by
J
,,..
‘4
1″?
11. The further grievance 0-f§’ti”i€. peégifigfléfg ié;1:_.;£1a’t’~.,
even if the zlotification dated
average population mdicatéc£’i1as –z13{Q’?t, kept ‘V
in View whiie physica,ii;:..Vdemarcé§tiIigL._§11e and as
such, the same is I}.O’t$ this 1’*e:ga;rd.,
clause 3 of provizies as
Ibilowsz
Whflev’ ” §iehm1tati01’1 exercrise of
‘« <.E§ruha'¥:= Ni'aha}1.agara Pailke} a
. t:5'-bécajved out. wiih an average
;)opuiéifi0;1—-01'3G,0OO (phxs or minus 2G0/G} 113.
A '«.VI.hfi<V::"'–r:§)z*e areas and as exception minhnmxx
1 in respect of Waiflfi in Izewiy'
v_ a¢ig.ié<:1 pezriphfiral areas can be relaxed to
:é(§,0<.;:0."
AA VT 11. The above requirement {weds 11:3 I’1._1:’t,ir1€:r
e)§_piax1ati0n. The figures, with ciis<:rr::'(::e?;-0161 tilerat) has;
J»
,o—
(5
been indicated therein under a notification and asetich
to the said extent, the demarcation/de1imitat.im:i_A»
wards would have to be in consonance.
the Government, it is contendedj:t11etA4ti;e’*said
has been adhered to in almoetail the”wards,v tf;§.er’e ~’
is a possibility that in the peiiehera] itfimay be
marginally lesser ..2i},”0Q0 is due
to practical difiiculty. V15;-tiveeate General
would they Wizhat ‘evven if there are some
discrepéznei.es, _ those with acceptable
margfial same would be verified and
,_dreeti.fied_–edue eouree. Though one or two instances
the learned counsel for the petitioners
indicated is slightly Iesser than or
the limit indicated, we do not propose to
T “eni;ern.–ini:o numerical jugglery, since such delimitation in
event eanznot be with arithmetical preeisiofl.
it Further, since the delimitation, almost to the entire
J
.-
Po
extent complies with the requirement, no
direction is necessary. However, in 1 *
rectification is required to be made as’ 4.’_1;i1e’, it it
learned Advocate General, the
Within ‘7 days, since the entire”~p_1’ocess of._eiee’tion”‘is to i’
be completed at the eaifiest.
13. Though made in to to direct the
third’ the elections to the second
respondexitwiti1oiit.Af:ift§ie1″:loss of time and for taking
acfion “against ., ‘responsible for not complying
V” directions, the consideration of the said
fixrefgrer piesent petition is not necessary, since
. that” issue is still at large in View of several
it it ‘ ‘4″‘V.~i.’deve1.opi1i1ents and the same is aiso being considered in
— one’ ether petitien filed by the very same petitioner and
” “is still pending ‘mfore this Court.
$
‘7.
29
In terms of the above, these _
disposed of. No order as to costs._
Index: Y1L.§s/ Ni; 1 A’
‘Web I-Ic)sf’:Yes[N0
ARC/brns L’