Mr. Ravindra Nayak And Ors Vs P. Jayendra Kotian And Ors

,,,,

1. In Writ Petition Nos.44499/2018, 50796/2018 & 53609-53611/2018, 54664/2018, 43519/2018 and 44520/2018, the petitioners challenge the",,,,

notification dated 10.08.2018 issued by the respondentâ€"State stipulating the reservation for various Wards of the Mangaluru City Corporation in light,,,,

of upcoming elections in March 2019.,,,,

2. The petitioners being aspirant candidates who intend to contest elections in various Wards contend that the notification dated 10.08.2018 is illegal,,,,

and not in compliance with stipulations of the legislative enactment, the constitutional mandate as well as guidelines specifying reservation policy and",,,,

matrix, issued on 02.02.2015 as per Government Order numbered G.O. No. £ÀCE 240 J0J¯ïDgï 2013 ¨É0UÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ",,,,

(“Guidelinesâ€​).,,,,

3. It is contended that Article 243T of the Constitution of India mandates reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every,,,,

Municipality (as defined under Article 243Q of the Constitution of India) and that these seats should be allotted by rotation to different constituencies,,,,

in a Municipality. The Guidelines, it is submitted, have been passed consequent to the undertaking by the State of Karnataka to ensure conduct of",,,,

elections in accordance with reservation and rotation made as per the Guidelines published prior to the election process pursuant to orders passed by,,,,

this Court in A. Ramdas and others v. State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development and Others reported in ILR 2001 KAR 5354. The said",,,,

Guidelines specify that they have been framed consequent to the official notification of the population Census of 2011 and guideline No.8 stipulates,,,,

that there would be reservation and rotation across categories [being Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Caste-Woman [SC(W)], Scheduled Tribe",,,,

(ST), Scheduled Tribeâ€"Woman [ST(W)], Backward Class ‘A’ [BC(A)], Backward Class ‘A’â€"Woman [BC(A)(W)], Backward",,,,

Class ‘B’ [BC(B)], Backward Class ‘B’â€"Woman [BC(B)(W)], General â€" Woman [G(W)]. Further, guideline No.10 stipulates that",,,,

to the extent practicable, repetition of the same category of reservation in a constituency shall be avoided between elections, in addition to various",,,,

other stipulations and directions concerning the process of reservation and rotation.,,,,

4. The petitioners have produced a Table at Annexure-E which details the actual Ward-wise reservation of different categories in elections held in,,,,

2002, 2007, 2013 as well as the draft and final reservation notifications for 2018-2019.",,,,

5. The arguments for the petitioners was opened by learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Harnahalli appearing for Sri P.N.Manmohan as the said,,,,

arguments have been further elaborated by learned counsel Sri P.N. Manmohan appearing in connected matters and had advanced independent,,,,

arguments, to avoid repetition, the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel have been referred to while discussing the contentions raised by Sri",,,,

P.N.Manmohan.,,,,

6. Sri.P.N.Manmohan, the learned counsel for petitioners (in W.P.Nos.50796/2018 & 53609-53611/2018) vociferously contends that the impugned",,,,

notification dated 10.08.2018 stipulating the final Ward-wise reservation for the present election does not adhere to the Guidelines dated 02.02.2015,",,,,

the principle of rotation as envisaged under the Constitution in Article 243T, as well as the legislative mandate under Section 7(4) of the Karnataka",,,,

Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and hence is illegal. As an illustration of patent anomalies in the impugned Notification, cases of Wards (Ward",,,,

Nos.28, 34, 39 and 57 wherein the category of General (Woman) has been repeated continuously in 2007, 2013 and 2018) where there is a clear",,,,

repetition have been pointed out. Further, the petitioners’ counsel highlights that there has been no noticeable change in the constitution of the",,,,

Wards, with the number of Wards having remained the same at 60 throughout the election cycles in 2002, 2007, 2013 and 2018. Learned counsel",,,,

hence contends that reservation for the same categories amounts to repetition and in the absence of rotation, which is illegal and contrary to both the",,,,

provisions of the Guidelines which specify a rotation matrix and prohibits repetition, as well as constitutional mandate (Article 243T) and legislative",,,,

provisions (Section 7(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976) mandating rotation.",,,,

7. Referring to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prashant Bansilal Bamb v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported,,,,

in 2007(4) Mh.L.J., it is contended that delimitation post decadal census by itself ought not to be allowed as an excuse to violate the constitutional",,,,

principle of rotation. The observations of the Court directing the State Election Commission to divide Ward-wise modalities under its powers to give,,,,

true effect and meaning to the rotation policy, has been relied upon to contend that similarly, in the present cases mere delimitation cannot be allowed",,,,

to violate the principle of rotation and sanction repetition which would be in violation of the mandate of Article 243T and Section 7(4) of the Karnataka,,,,

Municipal Corporations Act. Hence, it is contended that the Notification at Annexure-B is illegal and is liable to be set aside.",,,,

8. Sri. Abhishek Marla M.J., the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.44499/2018 drawing attention to the Table at Annexure-G and",,,,

adverting to specific facts contends that in Ward No.19, the reservation category of “Backward Class ‘A’ â€" Woman†has been repeated",,,,

for the terms 2007, 2013 and 2018. He highlights that in the draft of the notification which preceded the final impugned Notification, the Ward was",,,,

kept open for ‘General’ category, despite no objections having been received by the State to such categorization from the public, the Ward has",,,,

now been reserved for “Backward Class ‘A’ â€" Womanâ€. It is pointed out that the State in its objections has stated that this change,,,,

between the draft and final notifications arose whilst considering the objections received. Petitioner’s counsel hence contends that the,,,,

endorsement at Annexure-C makes it evident that no objections have been filed as regards the draft notification, and hence, the statement of",,,,

objections filed by the State is misleading.,,,,

9. Sri.K.N.Phaneendra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent â€" Karnataka State Election Commission has made his submissions",,,,

as regards the issues on hand. He states that delimitation has preceded before issuance of impugned Notification, and that the process of",,,,

“delimitation†includes within its ambit not only change in number of Wards subsequent to publication of Census Report, but also alteration of the",,,,

boundaries of existing Wards and reconstitution. Drawing attention to the case of T. Hanumanthappa and Others v. The State Of Karnataka by its,,,,

Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2870, whereby the Court had held that delimitation of Wards in terms of Sections 11 and 13 of the",,,,

Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 is to precede conduct of elections and further states that State cannot be permitted to hold elections in violation of",,,,

the statutory mandate. It is further submitted that the provisions in the aforementioned case are analogous to Section 21(2) of the Karnataka Municipal,,,,

Corporations Act, 1976 and that guidance must also be derived from Article 243T which specifies that the number of seats reserved for Scheduled",,,,

Castes and Scheduled Tribes in every Municipality must be in proportion to their population in the area. It is submitted that the mandate to take note of,,,,

population figures as reflected in the latest Census Report is as per Article 243P(g) which refers to population as ascertained in the last preceding,,,,

census of which the relevant figures have been published.,,,,

10. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the cycle of reservation as specified in the Guidelines and mandated must start from the starting point of,,,,

the cycle of rotation (referred to as sequence in the Guidelines) after every delimitation, relying on the judgment in Karnataka State Election",,,,

Commission, Bangalore v. G.Sangappa and Others reported in 2011 (3) Kar.L.J. 32 (DB) and in specific to para 21 which reads as follows:",,,,

“21. …We are, therefore, satisfied, that for implementation of “reservationâ€​, as also,",,,,

 “rotation†provided for under Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, the starting point has to be when delimitation is carried out",,,,

after the culmination of census operations. For the instant case, the year 2005.â€​",,,,

Hence, in the present case where delimitation has been carried consequent to publication of Census report of 2011, the cycle of rotation must be",,,,

deemed to have commenced afresh as provided for in the Guidelines of 02.02.2015, and that being so, Guideline No.10 mandating non-repetition must",,,,

be exempted. It is also submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of G. Sangappa (supra) is the law on the point and reliance on,,,,

the judgment in Prashanth Bansilal Bamb (supra) by petitioners is misplaced. It is also submitted that minor lapses in the process ought not to vitiate,,,,

the impugned Notification and that impending elections must be completed by March, 2019 in light of the constitutional mandate in the case of",,,,

Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 352.,,,,

11. WARDS:,,,,

Hiriyur City Municipal Council,,,,

W.P. No.32063/2018,,,,

The petitioner, who is an aspirant to contest for the elections to Hiriyur City Municipal Council as regards Ward No.7 states that he belongs to BC(A)",,,,

category and has assailed the notification dated 13.03.2018 wherein reservation as regards Ward No.7 has been made to BC(B) category.,,,,

Sri.Rahamathulla Kothwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has produced the Voters list which indicates that there are no voters",,,,

belonging to BC(B) category and further submits that objections had been filed specifically asserting that there is no voter belonging to BC(B),,,,

category. The said objections were filed in response to the draft notification and the petitioner states that despite such objections, the reservation has",,,,

been made to the category of BC(B), which is arbitrary in view of the fact that while making reservation population as regards the said category ought",,,,

to have be taken note of and hence seeks for setting aside of the notification .,,,,

Bhadravathi City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. No.53832/2018,,,,

The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 30.07.2018 as regards reservation to the City Municipal Council, Bhadravathi, in particular, the",,,,

petitioner assails the reservation as regards Ward No.5, as the said Ward has been reserved for the category “General (Woman)â€. The petitioner",,,,

states that he belongs to “General†category and as per the details furnished at para-2 of the petition, right from 1996, the said Ward has not been",,,,

kept open for “General†category and states that despite the Ward being reserved for “General (Woman)†in 2001, there has been a",,,,

repetition once more in the final notification and final notification, and that the final notification has been notified without taking note of the said Ward",,,,

having been kept open in “Generalâ€​ category in the draft notification.,,,,

W.P.No.52008/2018:,,,,

The petitioner has challenged the notification in specific as regards to Ward No.1 and submits that there has been no representation as regards the,,,,

category of BC(B) though there is substantial population as regards the said category in the said Ward. Petitioner states that the reservation for the,,,,

category of BCA(W) is illegal in so far as principle of rotation has not been followed.,,,,

W.P. No.53495/2018:,,,,

The petitioner, who is an aspirant to contest elections in Ward No.35 of the said City Municipal Council, Bhadravathi, has challenged the notification",,,,

dated 30.07.2018, relating to reservation and contends that as regards Ward No.35, the same has been reserved for women of various categories",,,,

continuously for the term 2007, 2013 as well as for the present term in 2018 and hence, it is contended that the said notification has not taken note of",,,,

rotation as required under law and and hence seeks to challenge the said notification.,,,,

W.P.No.53599/2018:,,,,

Petitioner has challenged the notification of reservation as regards Bhadravathi City Municipal Council in particular, with respect to Ward No.15. It is",,,,

stated that said Ward No.15 has been reserved for the category of ‘General (Woman)’ for the term commencing in 2007 and the same was,,,,

repeated for the term commencing in 2013. The petitioner states that the said Ward has been reserved once more for Backward Class BCA(W) for,,,,

the term commencing from 2019. The petitioner states that there is no reservation as regards,,,,

‘Scheduled Caste’ category though there is substantial population of the said category in the particular Ward. It is contended that principle of,,,,

rotation has not been adhered to.,,,,

Madikeri City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. Nos.50791-50794/2018:,,,,

The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 30.07.2018 relating to reservation as regards Madikeri City Municipal Council and states that in,,,,

the year 2007, the said Ward was reserved for Scheduled Caste and once again in 2018, the Ward has been reserved for Scheduled Caste category",,,,

and contends that there is no rotation as envisaged. Hence, for the terms 2007 and 2018 reservation for Scheduled Caste is arbitrary and illegal and",,,,

hence, seeks for setting aside of the said notification insofar as reservation with respect to Ward No.23 is concerned.",,,,

Beluru Town Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P.Nos.54041-54042/2018:,,,,

The petitioners have questioned the legality of the notification relating to reservation made in respect of Ward No.8 and 9 in particular. The only,,,,

contention that has been advanced is that there has been a repetition in so far as the said Wards have been kept open for the General category for the,,,,

term commencing in 2008, 2013 as well as for the present term in 2019.",,,,

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no bar as such as regards repetition as regards keeping open the Constituency for,,,,

‘General’ category consecutively even as per the applicable Guidelines.,,,,

Chikkaballapur City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. No.52537/2018 & W.P. Nos.52996-997/2018:,,,,

The petitioner, who is an aspirant to contest elections with respect to the Chikkaballapur City Municipal Council has challenged the notification dated",,,,

30.07.2018 providing for reservation with respect to Ward No.17.,,,,

Sri.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Mamata G. Kulkarni for the petitioners states that as per the final notification, the Ward",,,,

has been kept open for the ‘General’ category, though however the same was reserved for “General (Woman)†in the draft notification.",,,,

The petitioners contend that the change from the draft notification is only by virtue of the recommendations by politically influential persons.,,,,

Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned Additional Government Advocate points out that change to ‘General’ category from the category of",,,,

‘General (Woman)’ in the final notification was made pursuant to objections received and also taking note of delimitation and hence states that,,,,

the petitions ought to be dismissed.,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed written submissions. The same is taken on record.,,,,

Statement of objections filed by the Additional Government Advocate is also taken on record.,,,,

Hunsuru Town Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P.No.35959/2018:,,,,

The petitioner has challenged the notification relating to reservation and rotation as regards Hunsuru Town Municipal Council and submits that as,,,,

regards Ward No.7, same has been reserved for the category of ‘General (woman)’ for the term of 2013. Petitioner states that after",,,,

delimitation the same area of the Ward falls within Ward No.10 and has been reserved for the category of ‘Scheduled Caste.’ Petitioner states,,,,

that there is negligible population of Scheduled Caste and hence, reservation made is contrary to Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.",,,,

Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed memo with documents and has also produced a comparative chart between the earlier Wards and,,,,

the reconstituted Wards consequent to delimitation and points out that delimitation has resulted in increase in number of Wards.,,,,

Harappanahalli Town Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. Nos.51593-51596/2018:,,,,

Sri Devi Prasad Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 30.07.2018 relating to",,,,

the reservation as regards Ward of Harappanahalli, Town Municipal Council. The petitioners contend that the allotment has been done without taking",,,,

note of the strength of the population in various Wards and relies on the Table produced at Annexure-C and states that where the population of,,,,

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is high, the Constituency has been reserved for Backward Class and accordingly, no scientific system for",,,,

allotment has been made taking note of the population of ‘Reserved’ categories and hence, seeks for setting aside of the said notification and",,,,

for re-doing of the same in accordance with the notification and as per the guidelines relating to reservation and rotation.,,,,

Doddaballapura City Municipal Council W.P. No.38720/2018,,,,

The petitioner, who is an aspirant to contest the elections to Doddaballapura City Municipal Council, has challenged the notification dated 30.07.2018",,,,

as regards reservation relating to Doddaballpura City Municipal Council.,,,,

Sri.Naveen J.N., learned counsel for the petitioner points out that right from 1996, the Ward has not been reserved even for a single instance for the",,,,

BC(A) category.,,,,

The petitioner contends that the Ward has been reserved for the category of “General (Woman)†and hence contends that there is no application,,,,

of mind in passing of the notification and further points out that as regards eight Wards, reservation has been made with respect to the category of",,,,

‘Woman’.,,,,

Thirthahalli Town Panchayat,,,,

W.P. No.55599/2018:,,,,

The petitioner, who is an aspirant to contest the elections to Ward No.8 of Thirthahalli Town Panchayath, has challenged the notification dated",,,,

30.07.2018 as regards the reservation made to BC(A)(W) category. The petitioner states that in the draft Notification, Ward No.8 was set apart for",,,,

‘General’ category and same has been changed to BC(W) category in the final notification. The petitioner draws the attention to the Chart at,,,,

Annexure-C and states that as regards Ward No.8, from 1995 till date, the said Ward has been reserved only to the ‘Backward Class’ category",,,,

and from 2007, it has been allotted to ‘Woman of Backward Class (B)’ category in 2007 and 2013 and once again, it has been reserved to",,,,

‘Backward Class (A) (Woman)’ in 2018. Even as regards Ward No.4, it is pointed out that for the last three terms in 2007, 2013 and 2018, it",,,,

has been reserved to BC(A) category and hence, it is contended that the notification is arbitrary and has not been made in terms of the guidelines of",,,,

the Government and seeks for setting aside of the said notification.,,,,

Tarikere Town Municipal Council,,,,

W.P. No.53120/2018,,,,

The petitioner, who is the prospective candidate with respect to elections to be held for Tarikere Town Municipal Council, has challenged the",,,,

notification dated 30.07.2018 with respect to Ward No.3 whereby the same has been reserved to the category of ‘Scheduled Caste.’,,,,

The petitioner contends that in the previous occasion the said Ward was kept open for ‘General’ category. The notification dated 01.04.2013,,,,

indicates that the said Ward was previously kept open for ‘General’ category.,,,,

The petitioner states that subsequent to the draft notification on 24.05.2018, indicating that Ward No.3 would be reserved for Scheduled Caste,",,,,

objections had been filed specifically stating that there are no voters from the category of ‘Scheduled Caste’ and ‘Scheduled Tribe.’,,,,

The petitioner further states that information was sought for under Right to Information Act and no information was forthcoming as regards the,,,,

categories of persons belonging to the said category. The petitioner states that despite the objections filed, the final notification was issued on",,,,

30.07.2018 as regards the said Constituency for the ‘Scheduled Caste.’,,,,

The petitioner further states that as regards the other Wards of the same Town Municipal Council, there are voters belonging to reserved category of",,,,

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in Ward Nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15 and 23 and the said statistics ought to have been taken note of while passing",,,,

the impugned Notification.,,,,

The petitioner further contends that as per Notification dated 18.12.2013 at Annexure â€" J, which provides for sequence as per Guideline No.12,",,,,

which provides that when on the previous occasion, Ward was set apart for ‘General’ as per the sequence provided, in the order specified in",,,,

the next sequence, it ought to have been Backward Class (A) category on the subsequent occasion and hence, it is contended that the said guideline",,,,

has also been violated. Accordingly, the notification is sought to be challenged as regards reservation in respect of Ward No.3. Kanakapura Town",,,,

Municipal Council W.P. Nos.370/2019 & 332/2019:,,,,

The petitioner being an aspiring candidate for the Kanakapura Municipal Council elections, has challenged the notification dated 30.7.2018 which",,,,

provides Ward-wise reservation and the notification relating to delimitation carried out pursuant to the 2011 Census and seeks issuance of a writ of,,,,

mandamus to quash both the notifications with a direction to re-do the process of reservation and rotation.,,,,

Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Varun Jayakumar Patil for the petitioner has advanced common arguments with",,,,

respect to the aforementioned writ petition as well as in W.P. No.332/2019, wherein identical reliefs have been sought as regards delimitation and",,,,

reservation notifications for the Magadi Town Municipal Council.,,,,

The learned Senior Counsel contends that the constitutional mandate of rotation under Article 243T, which stipulates that seats reserved for SC/STs",,,,

“may be allotted by rotation to different Constituencies in a Municipality†and legislatively incorporated into both the Karnataka Municipal,,,,

Corporations Act as well as the Karnataka Municipalities Act, cannot be over looked by reference to other statutory requirements or plea of",,,,

administrative convenience.,,,,

Responding to the contentions made by Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phaneendra for respondent â€" State Election",,,,

Commission in other connected matters, has submitted that the principle of starting a fresh cycle of rotation and reservation after every delimitation",,,,

consequent to publication of decadal census reports is not sacrosanct and the fact of mere delimitation ipso facto cannot be a justification to start the,,,,

cycle of reservation and rotation afresh and defeat the constitutional and statutory mandate.,,,,

As regards the contention that in the case of G. Sangappa (supra), this Court has stated that the starting point of the cycle of rotation would be when",,,,

delimitation is carried out pursuant to census report, a distinction is sought to be drawn by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil stating that judgment in the",,,,

Sangappa’s case was passed in the context of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by,,,,

Rotation) Rules, 1998 framed under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. In light of the statutory provisions of the said Act and in the absence of",,,,

similar provisions in the Karnataka Municipalities Act, the law laid down in Sangappa’s case cannot be extended to reservation and rotation as",,,,

regards Wards of Town Municipal Council.,,,,

It is submitted that as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the number of seats allotted to each territorial Ward is",,,,

‘one’ and Section 11 specifies number of Councillors for the municipal area as depending upon the numerical population. In contrast, Section",,,,

161 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘KGSPR’ Act) stipulates that the number of elected members of",,,,

the Zilla Panchayat shall be determined by the State Election Commission on the basis of population as ascertained at the Census. Hence, it is",,,,

submitted that in the absence of any statutory deeming provision under the Municipalities Act, delimitation ipso facto cannot result in interference with",,,,

principle of rotation as envisaged under Article 243T of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that though the census reports ought to be,,,,

taken note of until the concerned entity has taken actual notice and effect appropriate changes ipso facto there can be no effect on the cycle of,,,,

rotation. It is also the contention that the judgment in Sangappa’s case proceeded on the factual premise that there was no repetition and the,,,,

sequence was adhered to in accordance with the notification.,,,,

With regard to the actual adherence (or lack thereof) to rotation by the State for the Kanakapura Municipal Council, learned Senior Counsel points out",,,,

various anomalies through a Chart showing category-wise reservation in Wards across over various election cycles as found at page 8 of the,,,,

memorandum of Writ Petition in W.P.No.370/2019. Attention is drawn to Ward No.19 which has continuously been reserved for Backward Class (A),,,,

category for the terms 2008, 2013 and 2019. On the other hand, Ward Nos. 2, 4 and 18 have been left open for ‘General’ and ‘General",,,,

(Woman)’ categories respectively, continuously for the terms 2008, 2013 and 2019. As regards Ward No.12, it is stated that it is kept open for",,,,

‘General’ for the terms 2001, 2008, 2013 and 2019 and hence, it is contended that there has been no rotation.",,,,

Learned Senior Counsel similarly points out that the principle of rotation has not been followed for the Magadi Town Municipal Council. Through a,,,,

Table at pages-7 and 8 of the memorandum of writ petition in W.P. No.332/2019, it is pointed out that Ward No.19 has been kept open for",,,,

‘General’ category for the terms commencing in 2001, 2008, 2013 and 2019, whereas Ward No.1 for the same terms has been reserved for",,,,

BC(A)(W), BC(B)(W), BC(B)(W) and BC(A)(W). Hence, it is contended that it has been reserved for ‘Woman’ right from the inception.",,,,

Therefore, it is submitted that the principle of rotation has been given a go-by, which amounts to a clear violation of constitutional mandate and calls",,,,

for immediate interference.,,,,

Channapattana City Municipal Council W.P. Nos.373-374/2019,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, while adopting the arguments of learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jayakumar S. Patil as regards",,,,

inapplicability of Sangappa’s case as regards re-commencement of cycle of rotation post delimitation, also assails the validity of notifications",,,,

relating to delimitation as well as reservation of Wards as per Annexures-A and B respectively with respect to Channapattana City Municipal Council.,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel draws attention of the Court to the Chart at page No.10 of the petition as regards Ward No.10, which has been kept open for",,,,

‘General’ category for the terms commencing in 2008, 2013 and 2019. It is contended that there have been similar repetitions for Ward No.2,",,,,

Ward No.19 and Ward No.21 which has seen repetition of “General (Woman)†reservation in 2008, 2013 and 2019. It is further contended that",,,,

there being repetition as well as lack of rotation, the said notifications are illegal and liable to be set aside.",,,,

Ramanagara City Municipal Council W.P. No.371/2019,,,,

Insofar as the notification relating to Ramanagara City Municipal Council is concerned, similar submissions have been advanced and attention is drawn",,,,

to the Table at page-11 wherein, Ward No.10 has been kept open for ‘General’ category in 2001, 2008, 2013 and 2019, and Ward No.27 in",,,,

2008, 2013 and 2019. Ward No.29 has been reserved for ‘General (Woman)’ for three consecutive terms in 2008, 2013 and 2019 and hence,",,,,

there has been a repetition which is contrary to the principle of rotation.,,,,

The additional argument made while challenging the notification relating to delimitation as regards Ramanagara City Municipal Council is that the,,,,

delimitation of the Wards has resulted in splitting up of Ward No.21 into two parts, which are separated by portions of Ward Nos.22 and 23 in",,,,

between. It is contended that in light of the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, there is a requirement that Wards",,,,

ought to comprise of contiguous blocks. Hence, a contention is put forth that delimitation has been resorted to without application of mind and is liable",,,,

to be set aside.,,,,

The additional submission of learned Senior Counsel, Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy is that merely stating that the exercise of delimitation has been made",,,,

could not be a sufficient justification for deviating from the mandate of rotation and unless the State provides material to demonstrate that the,,,,

delimitation has changed the nature of the earlier Ward significantly or that there has been a drastic change in the composition of population as,,,,

envisaged under the existing guidelines, there can be no exception to the requirement of rotation as well as non-repetition and the actions of the State",,,,

will not be beyond the judicial review.,,,,

Sira City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. Nos.40746-40750/2018,,,,

The petitioners, being residents of Sira and prospective candidates for the upcoming elections of Sira City Municipal Council from Ward No.9 have",,,,

challenged the notification dated 30.07.2018 relating to reservation of Wards for various categories.,,,,

Sri Mahammed Tahir A., the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the number of Wards has substantially remained unaltered as regards the",,,,

terms commencing in 2007, 2013 and 2019 and accordingly, the question of delimitation is of no relevance as regards the City Municipal Council, Sira.",,,,

While drawing attention of the Court to the chart at Annexure-G, it is pointed out that as regards Ward No.19 for the terms commencing in 2007, 2013",,,,

and 2018, Ward has been reserved for the category of “General (Woman)†and as regards Ward Nos.25 and 29, the Wards have been kept apart",,,,

for ‘General’ category for all the three terms commencing in 2007, 2013 and 2018. Further, the specific contention that has been urged is that",,,,

the Guidelines applicable as per the notification dated 19.12.2013 and in specific, Guideline No.10 which provides that if in the previous term the",,,,

Constituency has been reserved for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class (A) category or Backward Class (B) category or for",,,,

the category of ‘Woman’, in the subsequent term precaution ought to be taken to avoid repetition of reservation for the same category.",,,,

Accordingly, it is contended that on a bare perusal of the Chart at Annexure-G, the challenge to the notification ought to be upheld.",,,,

The further argument that has been advanced is that the sequence that has been provided for in the Government Order ought to be strictly adhered,,,,

and if it is the contention that in the light of delimitation the sequence is to start afresh, then the notification is bad in law, as the sequence does not",,,,

start at the starting point as envisaged in Guideline No.10.,,,,

It is also contended that if the starting of a fresh cycle of rotation for the purpose of reservation whenever census statistics are published is accepted,",,,,

the same would result in starting of a fresh cycle every ten years once and if that were to be so, rotation in its true sense could not be achieved and",,,,

the purpose of the constitutional mandate of rotation under Article 243T of the Constitution of India would fail.,,,,

W.P.Nos.40752-756/2018:,,,,

In the said Writ Petitions, the petitioners have assailed the notification and submit that there has been repetition of reservation in many of the Wards of",,,,

the Sira City Municipal Council and as regards Ward No.19 is concerned, there has been a repetition of reservation for the category of ‘General",,,,

(Woman).’ It is submitted that the said ward has been reserved for the ‘General (Woman)’ category for the terms in 2007 and 2013 as well,,,,

and hence there is repetition. It is also stated that there has been no rotation and sequence as provided for in the guideline has not been adhered to.,,,,

W.P. Nos.1212-1216/2019:,,,,

The petitioners contend that as regards Ward No.4 of Sira City Municipal Council, the same had been reserved for BC(B) category. It is contended",,,,

by the petitioners that as the population of ‘SC’ category is concerned, the said Ward has the second highest population of ‘Scheduled",,,,

Caste’ and hence, even if the sequence as per the guide line of December 2013 dated 18.12.2013 is taken note of, the Ward ought to have been",,,,

reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste’ category and hence, assails the said notification contending that in fact, in the draft notification, the said Ward",,,,

was rightly reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste’ category.,,,,

W.P. No.872/2019:,,,,

The petitioner contends that as regards Ward No.5 of the Sira City Municipal Council, as per the statistics found at the Table at Annexure-C, the total",,,,

population of ‘Scheduled Caste’ category is 489 and as compared to other Wards i.e., viz., Ward Nos.30, 14, 31, 26, 4 and 6 the population of",,,,

the said category is far lesser and hence, it is contended that reservation for ‘Scheduled Caste’ category ought to have been made with respect",,,,

to the other Wards referred to above before reserving Ward No.5 for ‘Scheduled Caste’ category.,,,,

Tiptur City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. No.50447/2018:,,,,

The petitioner, who is a prospective candidate for the upcoming elections to Tiptur City Municipal Council of Ward No.16 has challenged the",,,,

Notification dated 30.07.2018, which provides for reservation as regards Wards.",,,,

Sri S.Basavaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that as regards Ward No.16 as per the notification dated 12.10.2007, the Ward was",,,,

reserved for ‘Schedule Tribe (Woman)’ and has been continued in the notification for the year 2013 for the category ‘Scheduled Caste,,,,

(Woman).’ The petitioner states that once again in the notification issued in 2018, the Ward is reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste (Woman).’",,,,

Hence, it is contended that, as the candidate belongs to the ‘General’ category and cannot contest in the ‘reserved’ Wards, the",,,,

notification is illegal and is liable to be set aside.,,,,

The petitioner further contends that the change consequent to delimitation of Ward No.16 is that only a portion of Ward No.16 is shifted to Ward,,,,

No.17 and hence, the change in the constitution of the said Ward can be said to be lesser than 10% and hence, it is contended that the delimitation",,,,

exercise not having substantially affected the constitution of Ward No.16, the cycle of rotation ought to have been same as before.",,,,

Mulbagal City Municipal Council:,,,,

W.P. Nos.861-865/2019:,,,,

The petitioners have assailed the reservation as regards the Mulbagal City Municipal Council and state that the Town Municipal Council has been,,,,

upgraded to City Municipal Council and this is the first election as regards the said local body and referring to Annexure-F1 point out that as regards,,,,

Ward No.6 the population of ‘Scheduled Caste’ category is the highest and hence, if it is taken to be the starting point of the sequence as per",,,,

the notification dated 19.12.2013 in accordance with the mandate and the Guidelines, the said Ward ought to have been reserved for ‘Scheduled",,,,

Caste (Woman)’ category. Though in the draft notification it was notified as “General (Woman)â€, insofar as the final notification is",,,,

concerned, it has been reserved to ‘BC(A)’ category. This is in spite of the",,,,

petitioners having filed their objections, pointing out that Ward No.6 has the highest population is of ‘Scheduled Caste’ category.",,,,

Kolar Gold Fields City Municipal Council W.P. No. 570/2019:,,,,

Sri. S.Basavaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that as regards Ward No.33 in the draft notification, it was reserved for",,,,

‘Scheduled Caste’ category while in the final notification, it has been reserved for ‘Scheduled Tribe’ category and that the petitioner",,,,

states that the ‘Scheduled Tribe’ population is only 55 while Scheduled Caste population is high and the reservation for the category of,,,,

‘Scheduled Caste’ as in the draft ought to have been continued. Hence, it is contended reservation for the ‘Scheduled Tribe category is",,,,

illegal.,,,,

W.P. No.571/2019:,,,,

Sri. S.Basavaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity relating to Ward-wise reservation, in specific, as regards the",,,,

reservation to other Backward classes.,,,,

It is contended that as per the notification at Annexure-B dated 30.07.2018, no reservation has been provided for ‘Backward Class’, which is",,,,

contrary to Section 11 (3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.",,,,

Sri. K.N.Phaneendra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission submits that by virtue of the law laid down by",,,,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Krishna Murthy and Others v. Union of India and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC 202, where",,,,

the reservation for ‘Scheduled Caste’ and ‘Scheduled Tribe’ categories exceed 50%, the question of insisting on reservation for",,,,

‘Backward Class’ does not arise.,,,,

Gudibande Town Panchayat,,,,

W.P. No.41987/2018,,,,

The petitioner has questioned the notification dated 30.07.2018 providing for reservation as regards particular Wards of Gudibande Town Panchayat.,,,,

The petitioner states that as regards the reservation of the Ward for the year 2007, the said Ward has been reserved for the Category of ‘General",,,,

(Woman)’ and this was repeated in the year 2013 as is evident from Annexure-C, dated 06.02.2013 and that once again, in the notification dated",,,,

30.07.2018, the said Ward is reserved for the category of ‘General (Woman)’ and hence, contending that the said repetition is in violation of the",,,,

guideline, seeks for setting aside of the said notification in so far as it relates to Ward-wise reservation and to fix reservations to the Town Panchayat",,,,

as per applicable Guideline.,,,,

Vijayapura Town Municipal Council W.P. No.49473/2018,,,,

The petitioners seek to challenge the notification relating to reservation and rotation as regards Vijayapura Town Municipal Council and contend that,,,,

the notification dated 30.07.2018 is in violation of the guideline which provides for rotation and state that on perusal of the Ward-wise Reservations list,,,,

during the period 1996 to 2018 produced at Annexure-E, there has been repetition as regards Ward No.4 for ‘General’ category on three",,,,

occasions with similar repetition as regards Ward No.7, Ward No.18 and Ward No.19.",,,,

It is pointed out that as regards Ward No.11, there is a repetition for the term 2007, 2013 and 2018, wherein Ward has been reserved for the category",,,,

of ‘BC(A)’, that apart, there has been a repetition for the terms 2007, 2013 and 2018. As regards Ward Nos.22 and 23, the reservation has",,,,

been made for the category of “General (Woman)â€​.,,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioners further points out that in the draft notification at Annexure-B dated 28.03.2013 as regards Ward No.11, the",,,,

said Ward was set apart for ‘General’ category and as regards Ward No.4, the same was reserved for the category of “General",,,,

(Woman)â€, as regards Ward No.7 in the draft notification, the same was reserved for ‘BC(B)’ and for Ward No.18, it was reserved for",,,,

‘BC(A)’ and for Ward No.19 for ‘BC(A)’ and accordingly it is submitted that the draft notification had taken care of non-repetition.,,,,

The learned Additional Government Advocate however, contends that wherever there has been a repetition as regards keeping open the Ward for",,,,

‘General’ category, the same cannot be considered to be in violation of the Guidelines. For the purposes of Guideline No.11, it has been clarified",,,,

that the repetition of keeping open the Ward for ‘General’ category ought not to be considered to be a repetition as such.,,,,

Chikkamagaluru City Municipal Council,,,,

W.P. Nos.36970/2018, 36971/2018, 36972/2018 The petitioner herein is a candidate contesting elections to be held in February/March 2019 in",,,,

Chikkamagaluru City Municipal Council.,,,,

As regards W.P.No.36970/2018, the petitioner points out that as regards Ward No.5 the earlier Ward No.4 is renumbered as Ward No.5 and submits",,,,

that there has been a repetition as regards ‘woman’ is concerned through a different category. It is pointed out that as regards Ward No.14,",,,,

reservation for ‘BC(A)’ has been repeated in 2007, 2013 and once again in 2018. Hence, it is contended that the repetition of reservation",,,,

without rotation is illegal and contrary to the Guidelines applicable.,,,,

The petitioner in W.P.No.36971/2018 calls in question the notification dated 30.07.2018 pertaining to reservation and rotation of Municipal Wards.,,,,

Though the petitioner seeks to assail the reservation as regards Ward No.25, in light of the fact that any change as regards reservation in one Ward",,,,

would result in subsequent change of the whole notification, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that ultimately it would result in re-working of",,,,

the whole notification in accordance with law. The petitioner submits that as regards Ward No.4, the same has been renumbered as Ward No.5 and",,,,

similarly, Ward No.8 has been renumbered as Ward No.9. The petitioner had filed a memo along with the categories under which Wards were",,,,

reserved relating to the terms 2001, 2007, 2013 and 2018. The petitioner states that subsequent to delimitation there has been certain changes in so far",,,,

as Ward Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35. However, it is submitted that even as regards the other Wards, there is a repetition, and points out that keeping the",,,,

Ward open for ‘General’ category as regards Ward No.8 amounts to a repetition. It is further submitted that there has been a repetition for,,,,

‘BC(A)(Woman)’ as regards Ward No.30 for the terms 2007, 2013. It is also submitted that there has been a repetition as regards the Ward",,,,

being kept open for ‘General’ as regards Ward Nos.29, 24 and",,,,

1. Ward No.8 is re-numbered as Ward No.9 and there has been a repetition for the terms 2013 and 2018.,,,,

As regards Ward No.30 for the term 2013 which was reserved for ‘BC(A)(Woman) has been repeated in 2018 and so also as regards Ward No.34,,,,

for the category of ‘General (Woman)’, the reservation has been retained in 2018.",,,,

As regards W.P.No.36972/2018, the petitioner states that Ward No.33 has been reserved as regards ‘Schedule Caste’ category but submits",,,,

that the population as regards Schedule Caste is less as regards Ward No.32 as compared to other Wards, viz., Ward Nos.11, 19 and 4. However,",,,,

reservation in Ward No.33 which has been resorted to in the final notification is contrary to the Guidelines which mandates rotation and reservation,,,,

taking note of proportion of the population of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. Hence, the notification providing for reservation and rotation are",,,,

sought to be set aside.,,,,

Learned Additional Government Advocate points out that there has been delimitation as a result of which the number of Wards have been increased,,,,

and accordingly, the cycle of rotation is required to start afresh.",,,,

Learned Additional Government Advocate also contends that repetition of category of ‘General’ as such cannot be treated to be a repetition,,,,

even in terms of the guidelines.,,,,

Channapattana City Municipal Council W.P.55976/2018,,,,

The petitioner has challenged the notification relating to reservation as regards Channapattana City Municipal Council, Ramanagara District.",,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reservation of Ward No.7 to the category of ‘Scheduled Caste’ for the terms commencing from,,,,

2007, 2013 and again for 2019 is illegal. At paragraph No.5 of the petition, the petitioner points out that in Ward No.21 the reservation provided for",,,,

‘General (Woman)’ category for three terms commencing in 2007, 2013 and 2019 amounts to repetition and so also as regards Ward No.2",,,,

keeping open the said Ward for ‘General’ Category for three consecutive terms is illegal.,,,,

Learned Additional Government Advocate points out that repetition as regards ‘General’ Category is exempt even as per the Guideline and,,,,

hence no grievance can be made as regards repetition for ‘General’ Category.,,,,

12. Submissions on behalf of the State:-,,,,

Sri Dinesh Rao, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the present writ petitions are not maintainable and states",,,,

that in similar matters, wherein the reservation as regards Wards of Mysuru and Shivamogga Municipal Corporation were in issue, in",,,,

W.P.No.31722/2018 and connected matters (P.Umesh v. State of Karnataka), this Court had dismissed the writ petitions on 09.08.2018, while",,,,

affirming the notification dated 19.07.2018 which provided for reservation.,,,,

The learned Additional Advocate General submits that this Court has held that in the light of the bar under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India,",,,,

the question of entertaining petitions in exercise of power under Article 226 did not arise, while observing that the only remedy available was to",,,,

approach the Election Tribunal. Accordingly, it is submitted that this Court is bound by the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and if at all, a",,,,

contrary view is sought to be taken, the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Reference is made to the judgment in Sant",,,,

Lal Gupta and others v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 and also the judgment in U.P.,,,,

Gram Panchayat Adhikari v. Dayaram Saroj and Others passed by the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) 1895/2006 dated 11.12.2006.,,,,

The State has filed its statement of objections in some of the matters and has taken a uniform stand opposing grant of relief stating that there is a bar,,,,

to interference by the Court in Electoral matters in the light of Article 243ZG, that the remedy as regards the grievance relating to reservation or",,,,

delimitation is a matter to be ventilated in an election petition before the competent Tribunal. It is also contended that the petitions have been filed,,,,

belatedly.,,,,

Affidavits have been filed in some of the matters by the Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department clearly stating that as",,,,

delimitation has been carried out with respect to Wards pursuant to the statistics of 2011 Census, the notifications published ought to be construed as",,,,

“first reservation made based on this delimitationâ€. Hence learned Additional Government Advocte, Smt.Prathima Honnapura has submitted that",,,,

delimitation having been completed the notification providing for reservation is to be so understood as commencing a fresh cycle of rotation.,,,,

It is contended that repetition cannot be inferred where the reservation for the Ward is the same as provided for the term in 2013 in light of the,,,,

delimitation exercise. It is further submitted that the repetition as regards ‘General’ category is not a bar even as per existing the guidelines and,,,,

that the guidelines cannot be adhered to with mathematical precision in light of practical and administrative considerations.,,,,

13. After having noticed the contentions of the State on behalf of State Election Commission and the petitioners the following points arise for,,,,

consideration:,,,,

1) Whether in light of the contentions raised, case is made out for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as regards",,,,

notifications providing for reservation to Wards of the Municipal Bodies?,,,,

2) The scope and manner of judicial review in the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand.,,,,

Point No.1:,,,,

In the petitions that have been filed, the challenge is to the notifications providing for reservation as regards Wards of Municipal Authorities issued",,,,

pursuant to the notification dated 02.02.2015 and similar notifications which stipulate the manner in which reservation and rotation ought to be made,,,,

and maintained, by way of detailed Guidelines.",,,,

The issue of maintainability has been raised both by the State and as well as by the State Election Commission and needs to be determined in light of,,,,

the contentions raised.,,,,

The bar, as pleaded, is said to arise from Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, which provides as follows:-",,,,

“243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-,,,,

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-",,,,

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made",,,,

under Article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any court;,,,,

(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is,,,,

provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a Stateâ€​.,,,,

The notifications providing for reservation of Wards for different categories have been issued in apparent compliance with the Guidelines contained in,,,,

the notification dated 02.02.2015 and analogous notifications (collectively referred to as “Guidelinesâ€​). All petitions challenge merely the validity of,,,,

the reservation notifications and not any legislation. No challenge has been made to the validity of any law purporting to be made under Article 243ZA,",,,,

instead what is sought is mere enforcement of law as reflected in the legislation and guidelines issued by the State, which provide for a reservation",,,,

matrix and mandate rotation.,,,,

Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India talks of the power of superintendence of the State Election Commission as well as legislative power,,,,

“with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, election to Municipalities.†Till date, the aspect of reservation and rotation is not",,,,

provided for in any legislation. In the absence of such legislative exercise and in light of the prayers sought for in the present case, there is no ouster of",,,,

jurisdiction as such so as to examine the validity of the notifications issued by the State.,,,,

This Court in the case of G. Sangappa (supra), whilst interpreting notifications providing for category-wise reservation in the context of Karnataka",,,,

Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998, has interpreted Article 243O which",,,,

provisions are in pari materia with provisions of Article 243ZG. At Para 7 whilst referring to the process of “allotment of seats†as envisaged,,,,

under Article 243O, it is observed that the bar under Article 243O would come into play only when there is a challenge to the validity of a law relating",,,,

to allotment of seats.,,,,

If the words, “allotment of seats†found in Article 243ZG are to be interpreted in the context of the preceding words, it can be said that the bar",,,,

under Article 243ZG is only as regards the validity of any law relating to allotment of seats pertaining to any Constituency. The Division Bench of this,,,,

Court in the case of Surendra Babu v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in AIR 1996 KAR 339, while dealing with the challenge to",,,,

amendments made to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 at para-9 states that the bar under Article 243ZG would only apply where the",,,,

notification could be termed to be a law under Article 243ZA and if not validity could be examined.,,,,

Even otherwise, the challenge herein is not to the notification dated 02.02.2015 or analogous notifications which provide for the pattern and",,,,

methodology of reservation, but only to the consequent notification passed as being not in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State itself.",,,,

Hence, the prayers sought for is in fact to remedy non-adherence to the Guidelines, which encapsulate the mechanics of reservations and rotation. If",,,,

that were to be so, action initiated to enforce the Guidelines could by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be a challenge as regards the validity",,,,

of any law as envisaged under Article 243ZG.,,,,

If there were to be a legislation or delegated legislation passed prior to every term providing for reservation and rotation, examination as to the bar",,,,

under Article 243ZG may perhaps have resulted in a different finding.,,,,

As regards the reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, the",,,,

interpretation sought to be placed by learned Senior Counsel Sri K.N.Phaneendra as it placing a bar on interference in the election process does not,,,,

appear to be correct on a bare perusal of the law laid down. The Court whilst envisaging a situation where holders of power, held in trust, themselves",,,,

act so as to thwart a fair election process, considered such circumstances as an exception to the general rule of non-interference and proceeded to",,,,

hold that the Courts’ review to facilitate the flow of the election process would not be a bar. At Para 35, the Court observes as follows:",,,,

“35.xxx That is to say, immunity is conferred only if the act impeached is done for the apparent object of furthering a free and fair election and the",,,,

protective armour drops down if the act challenged is either unrelated to or thwarts or taints the course of the election.â€​,,,,

The ancillary question as to existence of an alternate remedy as being a bar to the exercise of power under,,,,

Article 226 has also been considered and answered in Para 34 of the judgment in the case of Mohindhr Singh Gill (supra). It needs no explanation,,,,

further than the observations in Para 34 as follows:,,,,

“34. xxx In harmony with the scheme, Section 100 of the Act has been designedly drafted to embrace all conceivable infirmities which may be",,,,

urged. To make the project fool-proof Section 100(1)(d)(iv) has been added to absolve everything left over. The Court has in earlier rulings pointed out,,,,

that Section 100 is exhaustive of all grievances regarding an election. But what is banned is not anything whatsoever done or directed by the,,,,

Commissioner but everything he does or directs in furtherance of the election, not contrary wise. For example, after the President notifies the nation",,,,

on the holding of elections under Section 15 and the Commissioner publishes the calendar for the poll under Section 30, if the latter orders returning",,,,

officers to accept only one nomination or only those which come from one party, as distinguishes from those which come from other parties or",,,,

independents, is that order immune from immediate attack. We think not. Because the Commissioner is preventing an election, not promoting it and the",,,,

court’s review of that order will facilitate the flow, not stop the stream. xxxâ€​",,,,

(emphasis provided),,,,

If this is the interpretation providing for an exception to a bar of interference by Courts whilst interpreting Article 329(b) a provision which was in,,,,

existence at the inception of Constitution, the same exception at the very least ought to apply to Article 243ZG which has been introduced by way of",,,,

an amendment and which is a provision in pari materia with Article 329(b).,,,,

In fact, in the case of Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar and Others, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 2979, the Apex Court",,,,

whilst dealing with the precise question as to the jurisdiction of the High Courts to entertain petitions under Article 226 and to issue interim directions in,,,,

the light of the embargo created under Article 329 has resolved the conflict as follows:-,,,,

“19. However, the Constitution Bench in Mohindher Singh Gill case [(1978) 1 SCC 405] could not resist commenting on Ponnuswami case [AIR",,,,

1952 SC 64] by observing (vide para 25) that the non obstante clause in Article 329 pushes out Article 226 where the dispute takes the form of calling,,,,

in question an election, except in special situations pointed out at, but left unexplored in Ponnuswami case.",,,,

20. Vide para 29 in Mohindhr Singh Gill case, the Constitution Bench noticed two types of decisions and two types of challenges: the first relating to",,,,

proceedings which interfere with the progress of the election and the second which accelerate the completion of the election and acts in furtherance,,,,

of an election. A reading of Mohindhr Singh Gill case points out that there may be a few controversies which may not attract the wrath of Article,,,,

329(b). To wit:,,,,

(i) power vested in a functionary like the Election Commission is a trust and in view of the same having been vested in high functionary can be,,,,

expected to be discharged reasonably, with objectivity and independence and in accordance with law. The possibility however cannot be ruled out",,,,

where the repository of power may act in breach of law or arbitrarily or mala fide.,,,,

(ii) A dispute raised may not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the,,,,

election. The Election Commission may pass an order which far from accomplishing and completing the process of election may thwart the course of,,,,

the election and such a step may be wholly unwarranted by the Constitution and wholly unsustainable under the law.,,,,

In Mohindhr Singh Gill case, this Court gives an example (vide para 34). Say after the President notifies the nation on the holding of elections under",,,,

Section 15 and the Commissioner publishes the calendar for the poll under Section 30 if the latter orders returning officers to accept only one,,,,

nomination or only those which come from one party as distinguished from other parties or independents, which order would have the effect of",,,,

preventing an election and not promoting it, the Court's intervention in such a case will facilitate the flow and not stop the election stream.",,,,

21. A third category is not far to visualise. Under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an election petition cannot be filed before",,,,

the date of election, i.e., the date on which the returned candidate is declared elected. During the process of election something may have happened",,,,

which would provide a good ground for the election being set aside. Purity of election process has to be preserved. One of the means for achieving,,,,

this end is to deprive a returned candidate of the success secured by him by resorting to means and methods falling foul of the law of elections. But by,,,,

the time the election petition may be filed and judicial assistance secured, material evidence may be lost. Before the result of the election is declared",,,,

assistance of Court may be urgently and immediately needed to preserve the evidence without in any manner intermeddling with or thwarting the,,,,

progress of election. So also there may be cases where the relief sought for may not interfere or intermeddle with the process of the election but the,,,,

jurisdiction of the Court is sought to be invoked for correcting the process of election taking care of such aberrations as can be taken care of only at,,,,

that moment failing which the flowing stream of election process may either stop or break its bounds and spill over. The relief sought for is to let the,,,,

election process proceed in conformity with law and the facts and circumstances be such that the wrong done shall not be undone after the result of,,,,

the election has been announced subject to overriding consideration that the Court's intervention shall not interrupt, delay or postpone the ongoing",,,,

election proceedings. The facts of the case at hand provide one such illustration with which we shall deal with a little later. We proceed to refer a few,,,,

other decided cases of this Court cited at the Bar.â€​,,,,

The question in the present case is as regards the fulfillment of the mandate under Article 243T which provides for reservation to the Scheduled Caste,,,,

and Scheduled Tribe as regards the seats reserved are required to be in the same proportion vis-Ã -vis the population of the above said categories to,,,,

the total population. In addition, Article 243T provides for allotment of these reserved seats by rotation to different Constituencies. The legislature in",,,,

order to further the constitutional mandate have by way of amendment to Section 7 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, provided for",,,,

reservation of seats to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe [Section 7(2)], Backward Class [Section 7(3)] and woman [Section 7(4)] (analogous",,,,

provisions are present under Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964). It is significant to note that the Proviso to Section 7(4) of the Act",,,,

clearly stipulates that the reservation as envisaged under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), shall be allotted by “rotation†to different Wards. The",,,,

modalities of such a process of reservation has been detailed under various notifications containing the guidelines.,,,,

In the event an allegation has been made as regards repeated non-adherence to any of the provisions and the Court intends to step in to remove,,,,

illegalities and deviations resorted to by the repository of power which is to give effect to the above law and issues, appropriate directions to ensure",,,,

conduct of election in accordance with the mandate of Article 243T and provisions of municipal legislations and notifications, could the same be",,,,

objected to? The answer, whilst taking note of the law laid down in the cases of Ashok Kumar and Mohindhr Singh Gill (supra) would clearly be in the",,,,

negative.,,,,

Alternate Remedy:,,,,

The question of alternate remedy provided under the statute being a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is also an ancillary question,,,,

which requires to be addressed. Section 35 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 reads as follows:-",,,,

“35. Grounds for declaring elections to be void.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the court is of opinion.-,,,,

(a) xxxxx,,,,

(b) xxxxx,,,,

(c) xxxxx,,,,

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected,",,,,

(i) xxxxxx,,,,

(ii) xxxxxx,,,,

(iii) xxxxxx,,,,

(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the Court shall declare the election of the",,,,

returned candidate to be void.†Section 23 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, has an identical provision and the contention by the State is that",,,,

clause (d) of Section 35(1) is a catch-all clause and would cover a challenge as regards the reservation and rotation notification, hence justifying",,,,

ouster of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.,,,,

Whilst Ashok Kumar’s case (supra) as referred to above, has answered this contention, another aspect of this contention was considered by the",,,,

Apex court in the case of Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and others in Civil Appeal No. 10587/2017 dated 17.08.2017, wherein the Apex court",,,,

relying on the principle of existence of judicial review as being a part of basic structure and while referring to the judgment in His Holiness,,,,

Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and another reported in 1973 (4) SCC 225 and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and,,,,

Others reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125 has observed at Para 13 as follows:,,,,

“13. It is thus clear that power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is an essential feature of the Constitution which can,,,,

neither be tinkered with nor eroded. Even the Constitution cannot be amended to erode the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be",,,,

said that the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. However, it is left to the discretion",,,,

of the court exercising the power under Articles 226/227 to entertain the writ petition.â€​,,,,

Hence, in the light of the above discussion, the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be an absolute bar,",,,,

though it is left to the discretion of the Court as to whether such power is to be exercised in the particular instance.,,,,

In so far as the facts of the present case and as to whether an election petition would be maintainable is a question which on first blush seems to be,,,,

answered by the residuary provision under Section 35 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 which appears to state that the election",,,,

petition could be preferred to redress a grievance where there has been non-compliance with provisions of the Act or Rules, or orders made",,,,

thereunder. However, noticing that the principle of rotation as envisaged by the Guidelines itself is not merely a private right of a contestant but is a",,,,

statutory requirement and such grievance if left open to be raised by every individual contestant subsequent to the announcement of results would not,,,,

only be impractical, but an illusory alternative remedy, and in fact no remedy at all in the light of the discussion infra.",,,,

The entire cycle of rotation could be impacted by adjudication before the Election Tribunal of the illegality of reservation as regards a single Ward.,,,,

Such adjudication could have an impact on the result of another Ward or other Wards and to an eventual re-working of the cycle of rotation, which",,,,

would lead to a huge delay and in effect, grievously violate the mandate of Article 243T. This could definitely not be the appropriate interpretation to",,,,

be placed as regards alternate remedy available in the present factual matrix as being by way of an election petition.,,,,

That apart, the breach of the principle of reservation and rotation is far too important a constitutional mandate of Article 243T of the Constitution of",,,,

India to be left to be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal.,,,,

The State relies on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Latha V. State of Karnataka reported in W.P. No. 22740-762/2017 to,,,,

hold that an election petition is maintainable as regards challenge to notification relating to reservation and rotation. However, In the light of the",,,,

judgment in Bharati Reddy’s case of the Apex Court, this Court is required to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court.",,,,

In fact, though the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others v. Karnataka Election Commission and Others",,,,

reported in ILR 2005 KAR 3323 has been referred to, the Court in Latha’s case, does not rely upon the judgment of the Court in Yatheesh",,,,

Kumar’s case in light of the Pendency of a Special Leave Petition No.4523/2005 before the Apex Court. It is relevant to note that subsequent to,,,,

the disposal of Latha’s case, the S.L.P. filed challenging the judgment in Yatheesh Kumar’s case, was disposed off on 23.10.2018 as having",,,,

become infructuous, keeping the question of law open as the State had undertaken to notify fresh Rules in place of the rules which were struck down.",,,,

It is clear that the judgment of the Division Bench was not interfered with and what was kept open was a question to be decided by the Apex Court,,,,

subsequently.,,,,

In the case of Yatheesh Kumar (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has approved the observation of the Division Bench in A. Ramdas and others,,,,

v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2001 KAR 5354, wherein it was clearly held that jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under",,,,

Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be ousted and the Court had exercised the power of judicial review as regards a notification passed,,,,

under Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. Even in the case of Surendra Babu (supra), which was referred to in the passing by the counsels, it",,,,

was clearly noted by a Division Bench of this Court that:-,,,,

“12. ….. In order to satisfy ourselves whether there is due compliance with the provisions of the Act itself, we examined the matter. If there is no",,,,

compliance with the provisions of the Act itself, the same would amount to ultra vires of the Act and would necessarily become subject matter of",,,,

examination by this court. …â€​,,,,

Even in the case of G. Sangappa (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed at Para 22 that the question of bar under Article 243O of the",,,,

Constitution of India did not arise, as the counsel for the parties were merely seeking for enforcement of existing provisions of law and in the facts of",,,,

the present case the relief sought for is only with regards enforcement of the Guidelines as contained in the notifications relating to reservation,",,,,

rotation and allotment of seats. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the petitioners, the observations in Bharati Reddy’s case (supra)",,,,

permitting judicial review, binds this Court.",,,,

The judgment in the case of P.Umesh v. State of Karnataka, (W.P. No. 31722 of 2018) relied upon by the State was rendered after noticing the",,,,

material fact that the Calendar of Events had been published which is not so in the present case and also noticing that the petitioners had approached,,,,

belatedly. However, in the present case notifications being published in the month of August, 2018 the petitions were filed soon thereafter and",,,,

continued to be filed subsequently and hence it cannot be said that there was delay in filing of the petitions. The judgment rendered on the same day in,,,,

Shiva Madhu and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2018 (6) Kar. L.J. 245 holds in the affirmative as regards the point of,,,,

maintainability while relying on the judgment in the case of Bharati Reddy, though in the facts of the said case the Court had declined to exercise its",,,,

jurisdiction. However, unlike in the case of Shiva Madhu (supra), the writ petitions herein are not belated and in the present case, the Court is not",,,,

directing redoing of the entire election process including delimitation.,,,,

The State, which is vested with the power to implement the constitutional mandate of reservation and rotation and has put in place a Legislative and",,,,

Executive measure to implement the mandate, cannot be found to object to judicial review so as to enforce the mandate under law and to ensure that",,,,

the elections are not only conducted within the time prescribed but also in the manner as mandated under law.,,,,

As regards the assertion of Sri K.N. Phaneendra, learned Senior Counsel, that the term of newly elected bodies is to commence in the month of",,,,

March 2019, and hence in the light of the mandate in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad and Others reported in [2006",,,,

(8) SCC 352], the Court ought not to interfere readily in the election process, aforesaid submission is taken note of and this Court being conscious of",,,,

the same, directions are being issued to the effect that the State is to rectify the anomalies and ensure that the elections are held in accordance with",,,,

mandate of Article 243T, within the timeline as mandated in the case of Kishansing Tomar (supra).",,,,

The State, which is required to redo the reservation and rotation notifications, cannot now state that the time available is too short to redo the said",,,,

exercise.,,,,

It is relevant to notice that the State Election Commission has been vigilant in seeking to perform its role as envisaged in Kishansing Tomar’s case,",,,,

and in fact had approached this Court in W.P. No. 6597/2018, seeking for appropriate directions to the State Government to come out with a",,,,

notification relating to reservation and rotation, and this Court taking note of the joint undertaking of the Secretary, Urban Development Department",,,,

and State Election Commission as regards timely publication of notification, had closed the said proceedings. It was agreed that the modalities",,,,

regarding reservation as regards Urban Local Bodies would be completed for the Municipalities by 09.07.2018 and as regards the post of,,,,

‘Presidents and Vice Presidents of elected bodies’ by 12.07.2018. It would not be out of place that it is only by the month of August 2018 that,,,,

the notifications eventually came to be passed.,,,,

If it is that the State has committed lapses in the adherence to law occasioning the Court exercising its power of judicial review, the State is required",,,,

to ensure with all power at its command that its lapses are rectified and the constitutional mandate of Article 243T as well as the mandate of Article,,,,

243U and Part IXA of the Constitution of India are adhered to.,,,,

The present case make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.,,,,

What is to be noted in addition, is that as regards elections for the term commencing 2013 with respect to the municipal bodies, the reservation and",,,,

rotation, and revision of electoral rolls on the basis of census figures of 2011 was taken up before the Apex Court in SLP(civil)Nos.3909-3910/2013",,,,

wherein, the Apex Court had granted time to the State to furnish the proposal to the State Election Commission on or before 04.02.2013 as regards",,,,

rotation of seats meant for reserved categories. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the light of non-furnishing of the reservation and rotation,,,,

lists within the time prescribed elections were held on the basis of earlier notifications. Hence, the notification prevailing prior had been repeated for",,,,

the term commencing in 2013. This would be more a reason that repetition of reservation in the same Wards cannot be permitted once again for the,,,,

term 2019.,,,,

That apart, it has been pointed out that time and again this Court had been directing the State to carry out the exercise of bringing out the notification",,,,

much in advance so as to avoid difficulties that may arise consequent to re-working of the notifications.,,,,

Permitting the State to go ahead with the existing notification relating to reservation and rotation would result in perpetuation of an illegality and the,,,,

State cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own lapse.,,,,

The observations of the Division Bench in the case of P.Hanumanthappa and Others (supra) appears to clarify the position as regards this aspect in,,,,

the following words:,,,,

“15. ….. When the Constitution mandates that the State shall hold elections to these Municipalities before the expiry of the duration of such,,,,

municipality, the State is under an obligation to hold the elections before such date in accordance with the law governing such elections. In derogation",,,,

of the law governing the elections and in ignoring the Statutory provisions, they cannot hold elections on the basis of the provisions which are repealed",,,,

which provision was based on 1991 census. On the basis of 1991 census the number of the Wards in the 4th respondent Municipality was 27 in terms,,,,

of unamended Section 11.,,,,

xxxxxx. Under these circumstances there is no virtue in the submissions on behalf of the respondents, that, if elections are postponed till the",,,,

delimitation or determination of the Wards, it would violate the constitutional mandate. The State has already violated the constitutional mandate. Now",,,,

it also wants to violate the law enacted by it. The same is impermissible in law. Having regard to the facts of this case, as already the term of the",,,,

Municipalties is coming to an end, there won’t be any further violation of any provision of the Constitution or any law if the State is directed to first",,,,

conduct the delimitation/determination of the Wards in terms of Section 11 and 13 of the Act and thereafter to hold the elections to the Municipalities,,,,

at the earliest. The State cannot be permitted to hold elections in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. It would be a negation rule of law.â€​,,,,

While the observations of the Division Bench would be an answer to the submission of the State, and interference in the present case has rightfully",,,,

been done to enforce the constitutional and legislative mandate regarding rotation. In fact, the delimitation process, as such, is not being interfered with",,,,

in light of the time constraints within which the election process is to be completed and the interference is only as regards the reworking of the,,,,

notification relating to reservation and rotation.,,,,

Delimitation and its impact on rotation and reservation:,,,,

As regards the submission of Sri K.N.Phaneendra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission that whenever there has been",,,,

delimitation pursuant to the census statistics being published, fresh cycle of rotation commences. It ought to be noted that the notification dated",,,,

February 2015 does not take note of the impact of delimitation as regards the cycle of rotation.,,,,

The Apex Court in Kishansing’s case (supra), dealt with the inviolability of the principle that there could be no violation of the mandate under",,,,

Article 243U which provides for fixity of tenure of the Municipalities concerned. It could be stated that if the mandate of Article 243T when sought to,,,,

be enforced due weightage ought to be given to the principle of rotation as being a constitutional mandate, far above any legislative or executive",,,,

direction.,,,,

The manner in which this mandate is to be implemented and its mechanics are more fully realized in the notification issued in February 2015 and,,,,

analogous notifications, which not only provide detailed guidelines but also stipulates in guideline No.12 a sequence to be followed.",,,,

It is not controverted even by the petitioners that wherever delimitation has in fact occurred and there is substantial change in the character of the,,,,

Constituency there may be a requirement to treat the said Constituency/Ward in a different manner.,,,,

The notification of February 2015 does not contemplate interruption of the cycle of rotation as envisaged in the event of any exercise of delimitation,,,,

that is carried out.,,,,

The State has taken the stand that the enunciation of the principle that the cycle of rotation would start afresh as in Sangappa’s case is to be,,,,

adopted in the present case as regards reservation and rotation relating to Wards. However, what ought to be noted is that the notification of the State",,,,

till date has not been altered. It would be appropriate to point out that the interpretation in Sangappa’s case was in the light of the express,,,,

requirement of carrying out delimitation as envisaged under Sections 161 and 163 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act. There is no,,,,

such analogous provision which provides for mandatory delimitation in the Municipal statutes, however as fairly submitted by the petitioners also,",,,,

wherever delimitation has been effected whether that could be a matter to be taken note of in deciding as to how the cycle of rotation would function,,,,

is a case that is required to be made out by the State to provide for an exception as regards working of the cycle of rotation as regards such of the,,,,

Wards where there has been a substantial change in their constitution. The circumstances where delimitation has not effected either the numerical,,,,

strength of the Ward concerned or does not in any manner effect the qualitative composition of the Ward is a relevant consideration while deciding,,,,

whether the cycle of rotation that has commenced requires to be restarted or reworked. The municipal laws however do not have any such analogous,,,,

provisions to Sections 161 and 163 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act and the applicable notifications are silent as regards the,,,,

impact of the delimitation on the cycle of rotation.,,,,

Without commenting on the question of applicability of the principle in Sangappa’s case in so far as the starting point of cycle of rotation for the,,,,

purpose of reservation consequent upon delimitation, what would emerge as a point of judicial review is that:",,,,

(a) There has to be rotation which is a constitutional mandate and that would, in its barest understanding mandate non-repetition as understood and",,,,

decided in the case of Abdul Azeez v. State of Karnataka and others (W.P.Nos.38256/2013 and connected matters dated 6.1.2014).,,,,

(b) That if the cycle of rotation is sought to be interrupted in a manner as not envisaged in the notification, material ought to be provided so as to make",,,,

out a case that the identity of the Ward has substantially altered so as to treat it as a different entity and accordingly rework if necessary, the cycle of",,,,

rotation or exempt the operation of the cycle of rotation as regards such a Ward.,,,,

The necessity for delimitation consequent to publication of Census statistics is not disputed, but ipso facto delimitation may not necessarily result in a",,,,

circumstance necessitating reworking of cycle of rotation or starting it afresh. In fact, even in the case of G. Sangappa before holding that the fresh",,,,

cycle of rotation was to commence it ought to be noted that in the facts of the said case as detailed in para â€" 17 there was an increase in the,,,,

number of Constituencies and there was an express undertaking of there not being any repetition in reservation.,,,,

The proceedings as regards the delimitation of Wards in Urban Local Bodies as per G.O. No. UDD4MLR2014, Bangalore dated 15.02.2014 at point",,,,

No.12 stipulates that “Once the Wards are reorganized, the Deputy Commissioner have to verify and certify the existence of more than 60%",,,,

erstwhile Ward population in a particular Ward. This is to facilitate orderly rotation of Ward reservation.†Though the learned Government Advocate,,,,

has placed before the Court Tables stating in a cyclostyled manner that there has been change in constitution of Wards consequent to delimitation as,,,,

well as population statistics, prima facie, the material placed does not necessarily indicate that the constitution of Wards have qualitatively changed as",,,,

envisaged in Point No. 12. Even otherwise, this Court will not enter into an exercise to determine the impact on the Wards consequent to delimitation",,,,

as envisaged. In the absence of material evidencing certification and verification by the Deputy Commissioner as per Point No.12, the submission of",,,,

the State that delimitation has occasioned reworking the cycle of rotation cannot be accepted.,,,,

Point No.2:,,,,

Judicial review though permissible in light of the finding in Point No.1, the scope and manner of such judicial review is a matter that is dealt with",,,,

hereinafter.,,,,

At the outset, it is pointed out that in so far as the challenge to delimitation is concerned, this Court is declining to enter in to the said aspect, as",,,,

petitions have been filed belatedly on that aspect and also in the light of time available for holding elections and any interference at this stage would,,,,

result in undue delay of the election process.,,,,

Further, the aspect of delimitation being densely factual and technical, involving decisions based on administrative necessities, it would not be",,,,

appropriate for the Court to enter into the validity of such an exercise at this stage.,,,,

The effort of the Court is not to lay down a policy but only to judge the actions of the State in adhering to the guidelines already laid out in the,,,,

notifications and also taking note of the constitutional mandate under Article 243T of the Constitution of India and other legislative provisions enacted,,,,

in pursuance of the constitutional mandate.,,,,

14. In the light of the discussion made above, what would flow is:-",,,,

(1) There cannot be repetition of reservation for any of the Wards as regards any category, as the same would be an anti-thesis of the principle of",,,,

rotation;,,,,

(2) Where there has been an increase in the number of Wards consequent to delimitation, the action of the State in reworking the entire cycle of",,,,

rotation would prima facie be justified;,,,,

(3) Where the number of Wards remain the same despite delimitation, the State must demonstrate substantial qualitative change in the constitution of a",,,,

particular Ward to warrant that Ward’s exemption from the cycle of rotation. This change must be above a certain minimum threshold and in the,,,,

present case is required to be of the nature as envisaged under Point No.12 and is required to be certified by the Deputy Commissioner as provided,,,,

for in the G.O. No. UDD4MLR2014, Bangalore dated 15.02.2014;",,,,

(4) The sequence of rotation, being, a requirement of the applicable notification, must be adhered to subject to the circumstances as envisaged above.",,,,

15. In light of the above four points, the validity of the notifications providing for reservation and rotation are examined taking note of the details in the",,,,

Table below:,,,,

Sl. W.P. No. Name of Change Repetition of,,,,

CMC/TMC in reserved categories,,,,

No.,,,,

number,,,,

for the term,,,,

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.","44499/2018

50796/2018

54664/2018

43519/2018

44520/2018","Mangaluru City

Corporation",NO,"Ward No.19â€"BC(A)(W)

Ward No.28 â€" Gen(W)

Ward No.34 â€" Gen (W)

Ward No.39 â€" Gen (W)

Ward No.57 â€" Gen (W)

6.,32063/2018,"Hiriyur City

Municipal

Council","YES

(4

Wards

added

in

2018)","Ward No.6 â€" Gen (W)

Ward No.8 â€" BC(A)(W)

Ward No.15 â€" BC(A)

7.

8.

9.","53832/2018

53495/2018

53599/2018","Bhadravathi

City Municipal

Council",NO,Ward No.33 â€" Gen(W)

10.,"50791-

794/2018","Madikeri City

Municipal

Council",NO,Ward No.4 â€" Gen(W)

11.

12.","52537/2018

&

52996-

997/2018","Chikkaballapur

City Municipal

Council",NO,No repetition

13.,"51593-

596/2018","Harapanahalli

City Municipal

Council",NO,No repetition

14.,38720/2018,"Doddaballapura

City Municipal

Council",NO,"Ward No.25 - Gen(W)

Ward No.27 - Gen(W)

15.,55599/2018,"Thirthahalli

Town

Panchayat",NO,Ward No.4 â€" BC(A)

16.,53120/2018,"Tarikere Town

Municipal

Council",NO,Ward No.17 - Gen(W)

19.,"373-

374/2019","Channapatna

City Municipal

Council",NO,"Ward No.7 â€" SC

Ward No.21 â€

General(W)

20.,371/2019,"Ramanagara

City Municipal

Council",NO,"Ward No.3 â€" SC(W)

Ward No.4 â€" SC

Ward No.29 â€" Gen (W)

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.","40746-

750/2018

40752-

756/2018

1212-

16/2019

872/2019

52008/2018","Sira City

Municipal

Council",NO,Ward No.19 â€" Gen (W)

26.,50447/2018,"Tiptur City

Municipal

Council","YES

4

Wards

(28, 29,

30, 31

in

2018)",Ward No.20 â€" BC(A)

27.,"861-

865/2019","Mulbagal City

Municipal

Council","YES

4

Wards

(28, 29,

30, 31

in

2018)","No contention of

repetition, only non-

adherence to

sequence of rotation.

28.

28A.","570/2019

571/2019","Robertsonpet

(K.G.F) City

Municipal

Council","YES

4

wards

have

been

added","No contention of

repetition, only non-

adherence to

sequence of rotation.

29.,41987/2018,"Gudibande

Town

Panchayat",No,Ward No.2 â€" Gen (W)

30.,49473/2018,"Vijayapura

Town Municipal

Council",No,"Ward No.11 â€" BC(A)

Ward No.22 â€" Gen (W)

Ward No.23 â€" Gen (W)

31.

32.

33.","36970/2018

36971/2018

36972/2018","Chickmagaluru

City Municipal

Council",No,"Ward No.14 â€

BC(M)(A)

Ward No.30 â€

BC(M)(A)(L)

Ward No.32 - Gen (W)

Ward No.34 â€" Gen (W)

34.,35959/2018,"Hunsur Town

Municipal

Council","YES

4 wards

(28, 29,

30, 31)","Ward No.5 â€" BC(A)

Ward No.17 â€" SC

Ward No.18 â€" BC(B)

Ward No.24 â€" Gen (W)

35.,"54041-

54042/2018","Belur Town

Municipality",NO,Ward No.21 â€" Gen (W)

36.,55976/2018,"Channapattana

City Municipal

Council",No,"Ward No.7 â€" SC

Ward No.21 â€" Gen (W)

light of repetition as mentioned in column No. 4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No.1. Further, given that there has been no",,,,

change in the number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle no. 2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been",,,,

placed showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Tiptur City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 26, relating to Tiptur City Municipal Council, no case for interference is made out in light of increase in the number",,,,

of Wards from 27 to 31 consequent to delimitation, per principle No. 2.",,,,

Mulbagal City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 27, relating to Mulbagal City Municipal Council, no case for interference is made out in light of increase in the",,,,

number of Wards from 27 to 31 consequent to delimitation, per principle No. 2. It is also noticed that there has been an upgradation of the elected",,,,

body.,,,,

Though case is sought to be made out for interference by reliance on population statistics, this Court declines to exercise power of judicial review as it",,,,

involves determination of factual and technical aspects.,,,,

Hiriyur City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 26, relating to Hiriyur City Municipal Council, no case for interference is made out in light of increase in the",,,,

number of Wards from 27 to 31 consequent to delimitation, per principle No.2. Though case is sought to be made out for interference by reliance on",,,,

population statistics, this Court declines to exercise power of judicial review as it involves determination of factual and technical aspects.",,,,

Gudibande Town Panchayat,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 29 relating to Gudibande Town Panchayat, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its entirety in light of",,,,

repetition as mentioned in column No. 4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No. 1. Further, given that there has been no change in the",,,,

number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed showing",,,,

substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence, no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Robertsonpet (K.G.F.) City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petitions at Sl. Nos. 28 and 28A, relating to Robertsonpet (K.G.F.) City Municipal Council, petitioners seek interference on grounds",,,,

of non-adherence to particular sequence of rotation by relying on population statistics, this Court however declines to exercise power of judicial review",,,,

as it involves determination of factual and technical aspects. It is also to be noted that the number of Wards have increased.,,,,

Vijayapura Town Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No.30, relating to Vijayapura Town Municipal Council, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its entirety in light",,,,

of repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No.1. Further, given that there has been no change in",,,,

the number of wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed",,,,

showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Bhadravathi City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petitions at Sl. Nos.7, 8 and 9, relating to Bhadravathi Town Municipal Council, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its",,,,

entirety in light of repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle",,,,

No.1. Further, given that there has been no change in the number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as",,,,

required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case",,,,

for exemption is made out.,,,,

Thirthahalli Town Panchayat,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 15, relating to Thirthahalli Town Panchayat, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its entirety in light of",,,,

repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No.1. Further, given that there has been no change in the",,,,

number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed showing",,,,

substantive change in composition of individual wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Sira City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petitions at Sl. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, relating to Sira City Municipal Council, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its",,,,

entirety in light of repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle no. 1. Further, given that there has been",,,,

no change in the number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has",,,,

been placed showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Hunsur Town Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 34, relating to Hunsur Town Municipal Council, no case for interference is made out in light of increase in the",,,,

number of Wards from 27 to 31 consequent to delimitation, per principle No. 2.",,,,

Tarikere Town Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 16, relating to Tarikere Town Municipal Council, notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its entirety in light of",,,,

repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No.1. Further, given that there has been no change in the",,,,

number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed showing",,,,

substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Harapanahalli City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No.13, relating to Harapanahalli City Municipal Council, petitioners seek interference on grounds of non-adherence to",,,,

particular sequence of rotation by relying on population statistics, this Court however declines to exercise power of judicial review as it involves",,,,

determination of factual and technical aspects.,,,,

Chikkaballapur City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petitions at Sl. Nos.11 and 12, relating to Chikkaballapur City Municipal Council, petitioners seek interference on grounds of non-",,,,

adherence to particular sequence of rotation by relying on population statistics, this Court however decline to exercise power of judicial review as it",,,,

involves determination of factual and technical aspects.,,,,

Belur Town Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No. 35, relating to Belur Town Municipal Council, the Ward-wise reservation notification is quashed in its entirety in",,,,

light of repetition as mentioned in column No. 4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No.1. Further, given that there has been no",,,,

change in the number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No. 2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been",,,,

placed showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

Madikeri City Municipal Council,,,,

As regards Writ Petition at Sl. No.10, relating to Madikeri City Municipal Council, the notification dated July 30, 2018 is quashed in its entirety in light",,,,

of repetition as mentioned in column No.4 of the above table, for being in violation of principle No. 1. Further, given that there has been no change in",,,,

the number of Wards consequent to delimitation per principle No.2, and for no certification as required by Deputy Commissioner has been placed",,,,

showing substantive change in composition of individual Wards per principle No.3, hence no case for exemption is made out.",,,,

16. Accordingly, the impugned notifications relating to reservation are set aside in light of the observations made above. The following directions are",,,,

issued:-,,,,

(i) The State at a future point of time may be required to have a re-look into the guidelines issued relating to reservation and rotation taking note of the,,,,

various contentions that have been raised.,,,,

(ii) The State is required to redo the impugned notifications in the light of the four principles stated above and furnish the necessary notifications after,,,,

reworking of the same in light of the observations made above to the State Election Commission within 14 days from today, not later than 28th of",,,,

January 2019, so as to enable the State Election Commission to complete further election processes in time.",,,,

(iii) The State is at liberty in the light of administrative exigencies to reduce the period of notice preceding the final notification regarding reservation.,,,,

(iv) The State shall extend all necessary co-operation to the State Election Commission, to enable conduct of elections within the time as mandated",,,,

under law.,,,,

(v) Henceforth, the State is required to ensure that notifications relating to reservation of Wards in Municipal Bodies ought to be published at least one",,,,

year prior to expiry of the term of the Elected Municipal Body, so as to ensure that the affected parties are in a position to obtain redressal of their",,,,

grievances and State is also given sufficient time to address the same. All in order to ensure that there is no infringement upon the tenure of the,,,,

elected body.,,,,

These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.,,,,