IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3TH DAY OF MARCH. 2t::~1Oi},:.'
PRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE *v~.« A
AND _
THE HON'BLE MR; Jfisrrce B,' J
Writ Petition No.1-F120 &7*:2 "pf 20'V1'O"[LB-Elel
1. Sn'. R. shygm S1ind;ar';'
S / 0. ..Rarri-ai{i*is.1__i1--1aaéha3*i ,_ '
Aged L1bo1;_fi,'_38 "yeaVfs_.f_' T '
R/«ate.2ri"«Cr6SAsv,\ Kuvempuvnagar,
V.ijanaph9i.'a,_Dhoorétvvani jnagara,
Bémg'alore_ I6, "
Sri. V. RaD1a:ah,V' ._
S / o. Venka'i:esh,V
~" v ._ "abQi1t.,%_37 yea1*s-,-~« "
Ne..C-- 17", fist Main Road,
Zkh Cr9ss,_ 'Prfi3r,_ei1Tka Nagar,
Veergonagm-__ Pg'>'st,
Bangalore -4" O49.
' " Petitioner
N. Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel appears
' V.fQ'1ff:Sr1'. P. N. Manmohan, Adv.)
\/
4. It is further stated that writ petitions were also filed
regarding opportunity to file objections before notifying the
reservations. The second respondent by notificatiovn.
23.02.2010 invited objections _regarding””i*eservation__iof.
Wards in the BBMP as per Annvexurte vt’h.e”said 0
notification Vijnapura ward reserved dfor”«:SG…(Woman)’
and Basavanpura was respeived ‘for ihfieneralii Category.
Both the petitioners to the said
notification. pfiespite notification
came to be sieciondaiirespondent reserving
Vijnapgnra anidviiiilivasavanpura for General
Categovry,VVfi hardship caused to them
as they are ..noiV.'”ab.ie contest the ensuing elections.
0 they ‘fiied these writ petitions seeking the
*- above reliefs – . .
5. inain ground of attack of the impugned
notification, the same is in contravention of Article 243-‘?
-0 the Constitution of India as well as Section 7′ of the
iv
KMC Act. The total population of Vijnapura is-335087
whereas the SC population is 6454 i.e.
totai population of Basavanpura is ”
population is 4115 i.e., C7 it
population in Basavanpura more tirafrv
population in Vijanapura”«vr.fi°i)espite–‘ the
reservation for SC has ‘been rnadellinllfiinapura and not in
Basavanpura which is illegal
6. The fieXt;”gfrlouia,djjisithlatll.reservation of seats should
be done by the Government
vide Notifioation.,V_{iateti”‘ 12.2009 the ward which the
niaxirnnrri of has to be reserved for SC out of
V. “vaarEds. The reservations to be made in favour of
SC’s;- iuo’luCiing women. Therefore reservation of
it _seats««._shoul(l«:l”‘he made on the basis of the population of
In;-‘sthe case on hand the SC population in
e.’Basa’v’anpura is more than the SC population of Vijnapura
it therefore there is no justification in reserving the seat
M
under Section ‘7 of the KMC Act read with Article ..___243–T
of the Constitution of India. in WA. No.4331,-‘2fliJp9:”and
other connected cases disposed of on 8″‘ G
this Court has given a categorical” direc’tior_r:to’._the–fE5ta–te Si’
Government for making reservation in
conduct elections and speei:ifiea1ly.V’ ‘State
Government to re–do thestrictlvinconforrnity
with Article 24351″ of “India read with
Section 7 of from the date of
the order statistics regarding
population of 2001 census and
submit “Further we made it very clear
that _Ru4les.:Vu’r1dqr’*5gEtion 21(3) by framing guidelines
. Cfcrp A..p_reservation to the Wards in the City
the State need not be made for this
_ election,..__’bu.t””the State Government shall comply with the
statutory’ “provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 21 to
the Rules for the purpose of subsection (1) & (2) of
Section 21 of KMC Act by following the procedure
\\V\L/
contemplated under Section 421 of the KMC Act for future
elections of all the City Municipal CorporatiS0ln_s~V.VV in
Karnataka State. The same shall be Ina.-gie
months from the date of receipt of ‘ 2.
The said judgment was challenged b-efovrellthie
in SLP on Various grounds. yideits’ order 2
dated 28.01.2010 disin.issedi”ti1e_:’said’pSLl5.”‘I’hereafter on
11.02.2010 an by the State
Government this Court on
to publish the
notificvavtilon of Wards for conducting
elections order has been complied with
by he _State..V”byh”‘ the impugned notification on
submitted at the Bar that calendar
been notified by the State Election
Coir:-1mi_ssionAfixing the date of election as 28.03.2010. In
the__ light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
:Ponnuswamy vs The Returning Qfficer, Namakkal
“Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and Others
it/’
10
reported in AIR 1952 SC 64, IN THE OF
SPECIAL REFERENCE No.1 OF 2002
ASSEMBLY ELECTION MATTER) reporter: iriir’s:’§?é,i0–ef;;-
sec 237 which was reiterated the eeririem ;
ease of Kuldip Nayar and Other’s__
Others reported in (zoosj’ifs4ce.i1ithis; ‘eannet
interfere with the eleetion proeetssiincluding'”re’serVation of
seats in exercise of its amounts to
interference I On this ground
alone the “entitled for the relief
petitions fail and the
same aredismissed;
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
