IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNA'rAKA AT _ DATED THIS THE 1 am my cm JUNE 44 1' - PRESENT THE H()N'BLE MR. JUS'TICE_ THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'?ICé' 1 MR ABD;;vL'§ CHIEF OFFICER. RESPONDENTS
V’ .(By.S1i_l§.Si?z?’Ii3!riAR HiREMA’i’I-I, AGA FOR R1-3,
V _ ” SR’i«,R.~€§fiAf{DRANNA. ADV., FOR R-4)
FILED U/S 4 0!? ms KARRATAKA
— HIGH’ CGURF acr murum TO SET AS53131 1113 0120312
‘PASSEI5.,V__.£3x’I THE WRIT PETITION No.13D9}.[O7 DATED
THIS war? APPEAL Cosme ON
HEARING THIS mar, saammrr .1., 9EL:3(ER_fi:nJ.”~THE–%.
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMEKQj A
This appeal is sin
W.P.No. 13091/2007 bcing datm
27.3.2007 dismgssirlz by the
appellants rm» bf mm to
quash the issued by the
1-: insofar as it relates to
Ward _aiid; ‘; further directions to
to reclassify Ward No.3 to
Lfinority~A (BCM-A)” fmm Backward
(BCMA (Lady) .
2.” it is averred in me writ petition that Ward
been wrongly classified as BCM-«A (Lastly) and
_4″‘it-~r:>ught ta have been resexvcad to BCM-A and the
” ” bbjecfions filed by the petitioners were not considered
\sw,
by the let respondent. The learned Single Judge
hmring the learned counsel appearing
petitioners and the learned ‘ V
respondmltsd to 3 held that ‘hes
made for the lady category “in; ” L’
past and it has not diep:}.ieri”e.:}d matter
has to be required note of
several is made out to
Show that the the purpose of
election which was “be held has been made
out by me; ‘Writ accordingly, declined to
fl “the eetizticamm issued by the
I” Ward No.3 of Nelamangala
as BCM-A(Lady) and dismissed the
aggrieved by the said order of the
‘”Single Judge dated 27.3.2007, the writ
ken; Q,
‘ . . _ _ this writ appwl.
\,_x’
3. We have Imrd the learned coutgsel
appearing for the appellants and the
appearm g for the 451 respondent and
Government Advocate appearing ‘ fdr ‘ 1
I203.
appellants submitted _:h.{f Ward
No.3 of Town as
‘BCM-A (Laély and the learned
Single Judge’ W. mg disnaissm the writ
pctition. _; ‘ ”
hand, the lwncd counsel
9%”! respondent submitted that the
. \:””~’:¢_1§g:2jons ‘I1:-1%: been held in Octobel-2007 and
would be done as per the roaster and
confined to the election.
K91}
4. The learned £ippcafln__ g, k %
6. The learned Additional Govemment
appearing for the respondents- 1 no 3 submitiffiii
election has alreagiy been held K V’
reserved as per the roaster
petition itself has hecoméb ‘-115. ‘a;i(_i_: k %
sought for by the appcflgntsliizqme fifimciiaus.
7. We have of the
learned parfies and perused
the
8. It of the Nofification
isszxgd 13? “respondent impugned in the writ
p§%titic£zi ‘.V’2”?:.”z”…i.?04I)7 Annexure-E that the said
passed pursuant to the direction
by~~ Court in W.P.No.19079/2006 and
dated 16.4.2007 and Ward No.3 has
c :%assified as “BCM-A (Lady)”. It is clear fiom the
order, notification with objections has been considered
5,43.
and Wards have been classified as per
learned Single Judge on aonsidemfien of ‘A V’
of the learned counsel appeannfg as: _
impugmd order and materiaw» ‘ ” V
the Ward was not ‘fur the and
the said fact is not the wand
has to be of a male
member . is required to be
deciqew circmnstances aftm
co1:3.sid¢.=;’rinfg.’. and wherefore, no
g;roun_d_ interfere with the said
‘ ‘-K1ot;ifi£iat’i€::!n’~–i;:1 exercise of power under wm jmsdicm’ n
It is clear from the perusal of the
that notifiwxion has been issued as
to the writ petition on 27.7.2007 and
the elections have also been mm on
_Q¢_§tot£r–2007 which is not disputed by the learned
‘ counsel for the appellants and wherefore at this stage, it
\3J> .
is ciear, that in the rmxt elections to be he4I(1″.:.:1:i’1g;
classification would be done as per the
respect of each ward and n° Ward N93 is é *
for BCM-A (Lady), it is open
objections and work out mmadgr.
In any View of the matter, m’i(i~ in
the order passed by as to call
for interference –t.his izitzta ”
disposed of with the
above said obs§exfvation_._s.A’._v ”
Sd/-‘5»
Judge
33/-3
Iudgé