B Ramakrishna Pai vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2009

In these writ petitions the petitioners have called in

.. _..lquestio11 the Government order dated 21.07.2009 bearing No.

NAE 139 MLR 2008 (Part), Bangalore published in the Kamataka

a”‘”””‘

Gazette as found at Annexure-«A specifying the number of seats

reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes _

categories and further specifying th.e»–~g1_1ideli’nelsdl’tof1oca,te.p of Si’

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe sea’t”:–:..ApA. * A

2. Prior to 2O(3{2r_the respondent’–wasl called as
the Bangalore Mahanagaral fthe BMP). The

second respondent’ip:jIiii\{E13.lhadiaii of councellors and
their terry -. ‘yon “lThe first respondent —-
Governrnent. hy area to the second respondent

named –.it as lilruhatiliangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short: ‘the

respondents failed to conduct the elections and

l:constitLitela.._ne§afl.body of councellors, a writ petition was filed

before. in W.P. No. 154820006 for a direction tot he

” respondents to conduct elections. This writ petition came to be

disposed on 02.07.2007 with a direction to the respondents to

conduct elections within a time frame of three months. The

“-..

(N

respondents failed to comply the directions issued by thisilorirt

in W.P. No. 15482/2006. This failure on the _
respondents in holding elections to the__sec..ond ll ”
was brought to the notice of this Court}.A:’l)_iiirision pp

court vide order dated fiirtherr, the ii i

respondents as under:

(1)

the “State (3overn«ment~.i”_shallVissue corrigendum

as–…reqt1ir’ed«l_’irr_ para~3 of the affidavit
av filed-.b*,’l the Government, within

* seven da.§:;ls,»,i,e;,.,oi:– or before 23*” September 2009 and

*_’theVreaft_er,,l tollllpublish the reservation notification

within two weeks, i.e. on or before 9″‘ October,

‘3 .

1- ._ J

[the State Government shall release entire balance

ll ‘funds to the State Election Commission in two equal

installments i.e. the first installment shall be made
on or before 71* October, 2009 and the second shall
be made by 15″‘ October, 2009 for the conduct of
BMP election;

w.uN

6

(iii) the Election Commissioner is directed to__ann0i1nc’eV

the events of the election on or before’-23″‘. M

2009; and –

(iv) the above directions _shalli”t3:<&*._ isrrictly.~aig1hered

all the respondents of time
shall be granted on _ V,

3. In co?:r11v3iian:cf-e– by this Court
as stated the impugned
notification ii~iA1inexi1re A specifying the seats
reserVedKfor’ ficheduled Tribes, backward class

and other categories. iandfiisoiiiguideiine to locate Scheduled Castes

and”Scheduleei&TribesHseats in different wards. Hence these writ

iipetitioris; T ._ V ‘ V

éifleard arguments on both the side and perused the entire

” « V’ writ’ “papers.

;»_J’\

<7"

V S S’ llsacigyvayd. éiagses — (B) (Women) 4

5. In the larger area under the BBMP 198 K

on the basis of population. Under the impugned, v_Arji~oti1″-kfatioizii ‘–”

Annexure A number of seats reserved for S-::jhéduI_ed,

Scheduled Tribes and other categories 611 the ba5is’l’t}f:censt1s bf

the year 2001 are notified and the isas

CATEGORY gbié. o.1?’sIa:iAl’I’s .lRl?1SERV]E.D

Scheduled Caste ‘ ° W
V . . ‘ . .. Ix ‘
Scheduled Caste (xxtemen) V ‘ _» 8 ”

Scheduled Tribe S ” _ _ 4′ S

Schtédliied.T:it?Sll{V’C9ii19¥1) S ” sssss ‘A S 1

Backward Classes l&fV(pé:–§§:i5) 35

liacliward Classes — 18 3’

Classes ~:§(Persons) 9

E.

l€ieneraii.V l 71

9

7. A reading of Article 243 (T) of the Constitution and
Section 7 of the KMC Act specifies reservation of seats to the

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women by rota’tio’nip’to’

different constituencies in a municipality. In these p7riovisio.ns it i

not specified as to how and’ in what manner ‘the”.seats– s_o’-resvervedl

are to be located in differentgplaces “of the municipalitjf or

corporation. Therefore it cannot She said thatpithe guidelines
specified in the impugnedto”locate.,the reserved seats

for Scheduled Caste’ and in BBMP area

is opposed the Constitution and Section 7 of

the K}/[C Act: Hence Ildeciine to accept the contention of the

l’learinedE’cic5i1nsel for petitioners that clauses 5 and 6 in the

lliimpéiignedil”notification are contrary to Articie 243 (T) of the

-V con§ti:uti§n’ and Section 7 of the KMC Act.

During the course of argument, a direction was

V. issued to the Government to clarify clauses 5 and 6 of the

(‘7L\\/”‘2i”‘~
.3!

1 {l

impugned notification and also to place on record, the statistics

relating to the total population in each ward, the percentage of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population.

the Government filed an affidavit clarifying clauses, i;he5 C ‘

impugned notification and also placed:=.necessaiy’fiat-iStics.”1?ron1:;aAl

combined reading of clauses 5 a’I5id”6._of theimpugnednotification 2 S’

and the clarification placed by Vth-ei:A.Coife.rnment;~the.~:l”ollowing

guidelines are specified to locate teserivedysealts for Scheduled

Castes and’ficheduletifllribegcategories in different wards in BBMP

area.

a. No”~wardVwi_th’ini BBMP area is spread across in more
than oneiiassembly constituency and the entire ward is

V ‘ ‘locatedin one of the assembly constituencies within the

area.

assembly constituency is taken as the basis for
locating one reserved Scheduled Caste category seat in

each of the assembly constituencies.

aw

i l

c. 23 seats reserved for Scheduled caste category are to be

located from out of 28 assembly constituencies.

Therefore the assembly constituencies _

Scheduled Caste population; is ,t_akeIf.'”as” S”

locate the reserved seats llibr 7..ASChedt1levd..

ascending order.

d. The ward \nrit?1fi12..«_ having
highest Scheduled be reserved for

V ‘

_ 9., By folloyving the above guidelines the reserved seats for

S Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories will be located in

125 ‘wards asseinbly constituencies. The above guidelines to

–V locate ‘Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories in the

V’ area is reasonable, rational, practical and will achieve the

Dllrpose of social iustice. The guidelines issued by the respondents

0″”

.~ , notiiieation.

cannot be said arbitrary, illegal or irrational. ‘I’11erefore.t1ie.<_'i7u'rit

petitions are liable to be rejected.

10. The Supreme Court in thepppcase of_.’R.’C.– ll ”

Union of India (1994 Supp. (1) sec 32%;}. held ‘tl1at”‘tliere

be uniformity of population or electoral strlengt}:1..inv_.tlieV fiafier of V

delimitation of constittlen_eie3;~””‘ “‘§’l1eref.ore, tlie'”gL1ide1i.nes
specified in the imptignedv”notiiEeatio=i1~.,va1’e’ 1» definite, specific,

practical and re_aso:e’able.V 4″.E3.zen ltherelaI’e” little variations the

same will not in%.v;;li.date the”-irnpugned notification. Therefore, I
find no justifiable’ to interfere with the impugned

‘ V 11..Forl3–t1ie reasons stated above, the following;

ORDER

* . Writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

oR\:v-

13

It is made clear that the respondents shall take steps
forthwith to comply the directions issued by this
Court in its order dated 17.09.2009 in

W.?.15A’-182/2006. Ordered accordingly. ~

Ssi/~sis'[is o