High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt. B.M.Bharathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt. B.M.Bharathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2009
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT I3ANOAI_,OERE._V
DATED THIS THE 6"" DAY OF NOVEMEER.__;{(§II<;«';..[  ;_. A' 
BEFORE V

THE HON'BLE MR. }USTlCE H.NANASAMC}H1A.N"DAV§-..__« 

WRIT PETITION NO;32298/2I§(i9IL-8-ISLE.)  :1

BETWEEN :

Smt. B  BHARATHI

W/O. MVENKATES-H  V
AGED AEOuT3m'««E2xRs=:._ :; 

R/O. NO. I34,__I,E I 
NISARGA LAYOUT 

BANNERVGIHVATTA    'D V

.FIGANII}1OBLI"~.j_V  _ 
ANE'I<AE_TAEu.I<  * , "

BANGALORE uREVAI*-II_OjVDIs<Ii;:"' 

(BY S112; HLSRIDHARI'v;AD'v.j'"

E. '; ''1vsTA'I'EIjOEKARNATAIANCHAYATH: RA}

i7\\'VV

~   5 BUILDING
*-- BANGALORE, -- I.

 PETITIONER



2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
MARKETING FEDERATION BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
BY ITS SECRETARY. .

3 THEIMRECTOR
PANCHAYATHRAJAND .A-_
EXJMWUCKLKHNTSECRETARY _ _
DEPT1M3RURALDEVELOPMENTfI'
ANDPANCHAYATHRAIr_ ' =
NISBUHJMNG "w
BANGALORE

4. ELm:n0Nc0NmMs$0NERA&n»j;
sUB[nv$KMqC0wmmsmQNER_'_E .
BANGALORESOUTHSUBIMVflflONafl*
BANGALORE _ " *~."J¢ '49

5 THECTHEFEXECUTHHZOFHCER
ANEKALTALUKPANCHAYATH
ANEKAL _';.",*»=
BANGALORE, g*,} MIHEPONDENTS

(BYsgi2DEVDA&}vh§F0R£L1&3

"'SmPANHwmwyADv;F0RRa&un

'GfHm;fi@wfPETn10N1sFnJ1)UNDER,MwncLEs226

 ~A.ND "22"Fg OE THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A

"'»~'.._I'PRAYER.v_7TO QUASI-I TI-IE ELECTION NOTIFICATION

 ' IIVVIIETTER AND CALENDER OF EVENTS DATED 26.1().2()09
 A/TIDE ANN'EXURE F AND ETC.

d'"""'



THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THES DAY, THE COURT PASSED
THE FOLLOWING; 

ORDER

Respondent issued a nOtific:.ItiOn On l5.()5_I2I).(V)9I:V};Is L’pcI*-«T

Annexure B to hoid eiection to the Ot’t’i0e Of PI§eSi_dciIIt–

President Of Anekal taluk panch2Iy2Ith_I’0seI’ViIIg’thc pOst–“.Off ‘p:’E:$id’eII”t<

for backward category (women) post V(')E'..\/'i"<;eV«':;3I*O:.<;:idcnt to
scheduled caste Category. TfiI§'~I1()[i36.i:b€t[IA()'1}:. to be qII ashed by
this Court in W.P. NOS. I3822mV2'9/20009' ~}Ide:'~gi%aé?I-;»dIm:I 14.09.2009

and directed the '~1fivfi$vpOI1;V?Ci'€'IEE'=$"KI 'nOId.e}ectiOns tO the Anekal taiuk
pLlI1C-h21y£t[h'* as" p€i"_filégl'C!'1.§I:V'.31{i()l] in the noaificzution dated

()5.()5.20–O9. SIIIOI; 'I7é"S[I_)(.) §'1d{")z'I.].[.'s' failed to hoid the elections as per

E'II0diVIec{'tiOfIA:'+ O'I"..this COIITIA In W.P. Nos. E3822A29/2009, a Contempt

peIi%LIg§I'cm-ct::I§%'VIII;:'_1§IIecI before this Court in ccc No. 757/2009.

NOW 0,3 per 'A_tIftIéxure F the respondcms have issued notice dated

hoid eiections to the Anekal taluk pam:hay2ItE_I

_rC:sé:'"ving the post Of president for geIIeI'2I% category and the post Of

T i"=\%i.d-CV-p1'€Sid€I1[ for bzlckwzud ciass women category. In this writ

cum»

petition the petitionei' is eaiiing in question Annexure F –v_IV'1(,_)'[iL'¢

dated 26.10.2009.

2. Heard iearned counsel for both the p§14IT'[i'{‘3S”‘§LI1.d’ })v€_i’USCt§ the_

entire writ papers ” V x

3. Armexure F dated 26. iU.2()’U9:iVSSLl€d bVy._t_he is
in eoinpliaiice of the direct.ioi1s_ 1 Nos.

13822-29/2009. It is not Si1(V):”\?:\’/I’3!’_l’:Cr’ notice at

Aimexure F is ;C(‘)i*.’£7:3’_£§_.i’y to t;he7 govei*ri.i’1iei1_Lf notification dated

05.05.2009″hievziriiiéN(>.’ii:CiA.»§i’f;~?iii\i’t’AX'($3)/G-PASA/2009. F-til'[h€1″ in
the impugiieti ‘notice0tit:’Aiiih~:20i§’u<:7r3" F ii is aiso specified that the

resei'vat':o.i1 of iiost of7'p1"esideTnt and vice~pi'esident is as per the

iiioti£'i.Veatioi1"*déitegi ()5.0'Si?.t}()9. In the ci.i'cumsta1ices I find no

ju.siitTiahtev..T"giouifid_}~to interfere with the impugned notice.

0 Aeeo1.'-d__.ingI_y,~E.h;{%=W1-it petition is hereby dismissed. ,3 ,

Sd/~
JUDGE

" LLRS;/()7; £2009