J.S. Khehar. C.J.
1. Respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 36337 of 2010, wherein, he assailed a notification issued by the State Election Commission dated 08.11.2010 ("Annexure-A", to the instant writ appeal). Through the aforesaid notification, the State Election Commission had earmarked constituencies category-wise for purposes of reservation. The reservation made were not only for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, but also for Women. The remaining constituencies were to be filled up without any reservation. The claim of Respondent No. 1 before this Court was, that the reservation contemplated under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Panchayat Raj Act''), read with the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998), have to be in consonance with the mandate of reservation contained in Article 243D of the Constitution of India. The pointed submission at the hands of Respondent No. 1, during the course of writ proceedings was, that the "rotation" in the matter of "reservation" contemplated under the aforesaid provisions had not been given effect to, through the impugned notification dated 08.11.2010.
2. W.P. No. 36337 of 2010 came to be disposed of by an order dated 25.11.2010. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion, that the notification depicting reservations was not sustainable, in terms of the mandate of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It was sought to be contended, that the reservation contemplated through the impugned notification had merely provided for "reservation", by alternating between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and not in terms of the mandate of Section 162(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, by "rotation" amongst all the reserved categories.
3. Through the instant writ appeal, the Karnataka State Election Commission has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2010, disposing of W.P. No. 36337/10 (and other connected writ petitions).
4. First and the foremost, during the course of hearing, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable, and as such, should not have been entertained for adjudication on merits by the learned Single Judge, in so far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned Counsel for the Appellant placed emphatic reliance on Article 243O of the Constitution of India. Article 243O aforementioned, is extracted hereunder:
Article 243O. 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 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat 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 State.
Based on the aforesaid provision, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that there is a complete bar to interference at the hands of Courts, in electoral matters, under Articles 243O of the Constitution of India, and as such, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to render the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2010, by setting aside, the determination of the Appellant, in "reserving" particular constituencies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, in the upcoming Panchayat elections.
5. While repudiating the contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, that the simple prayer made before the learned Single Judge was, to require the Appellant to enforce the process of "reservation", by providing for "rotation" as per the mandate of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. It was the emphatic contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, that through Writ Petition No. 36337 of 2010, Respondent No. 1 had not assailed any legal provision / legislative enactment, relating to any aspect whatsoever, including allotment of seats. It was therefore reiterated, that the claim was merely for the enforcement of the existing provisions of law, and accordingly, not within the scope of the bar contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution of India.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters under Articles 243O of the Constitution of India, can be divided into two parts. The bar under the first part (under Clause (a) of the said Article) pertains to a challenge prior to the actual process of election, whereas, the bar Under the second part (under Clause (b) of the said Article), pertains to a challenge on the culmination of the election process. In so far as the present controversy is concerned, the claim raised by Respondent being before the commencement of the electoral process, it can fall only under the first part referred to above, i.e., within the ambit of Article 243O(a).
7. A closer examination of Article 243O(a) reveals, that the bar contemplated under Article 243O of the Constitution of India, pertains to a challenge to a legal provision/legislative enactment relating to delimitation of constituencies, or alternatively, the validity of any law relating to the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243K of the Constitution of India. In so far as the controversy before us is concerned, the same does not fall in any of the aforesaid two classifications, and as such, must for all intentions and purposes be considered to be beyond the scope and purview of Article 243O(a) of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, find no merit in the first submission advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
8. The second submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, was also in the nature of a preliminary objection. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that a controversy similar to the one which was raised by Respondent No. 1, by filing writ petition No. 36337/2010, had been raised before this Court on an earlier occasion through writ petition No. 14625 of 2005 (arid other connected writ petitions) which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.06.2005 in
9. It was, however, pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in H.C. Yatheesh Kumar''s case (supra) was assailed by preferring a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which was granted by the Supreme Court, whereupon, it was renumbered as Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2005. Referring to an order passed by the Apex Court on 3.10.2005 in H.C. Yatheesh Kumar''s case (supra), it was submitted, that the operation of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court was directed to be stayed, and accordingly, elections were directed to be conducted in consonance with the notifications issued by the Karnataka State Election Commission. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2005 was handed over to us in Court, the same was taken on record and marked as "Annexure- C". Our attention was also sought to be drawn to the fact, that the aforesaid interim order passed by the Supreme Court was made absolute on 21.11.2005. The order dated 21.11.2005 is reported in Karnataka State Election Commission v. H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 181. It was, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that it would be unjust for this Court, to examine the same issue all over again, in the same context, as it was earlier agitated before the Division Bench in H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others case (supra).
10. The second submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant was sought to be controverted by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 by contending, that Respondent No. 1 had not assailed any statutory provision i.e., either the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act, or the, Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. It was sought to be canvassed, that the sole object of Respondent No. 1 in approaching this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36337 of 2010, was to ensure, that the mandatory provisions of law should be given effect to, in letter as well as in spirit, within the frame-work of Article 243D of the Constitution of India.
11. Keeping in view the express contention advanced at the hands of Respondent No. 1, we are of the view that the adjudication of the controversy earlier by this Court in H.C. Yatheesh Kumar''s case (supra), as also, the interlocutory orders passed by the Supreme Court (during the course of adjudication of an appeal preferred therefrom), would have no bearing on the present controversy. Since according to learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 was limited only to, giving effect to the "reservation" as also, "rotation" contemplated u/s 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. Since this Court has not been required to examine the validity of any legal provision or statutory enactment, but on the contrary, this Court has only been required to ensure, that the relevant provisions of law are given effect to, it seems to us, that the second submission advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, is rather far fetched. As such, we find no merit, even in the second contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
12. In so far as the third contention is concerned, the same has a number of facets. We shall first delineate the different facets projected at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, while canvassing the third contention.
13. It is "firstly" contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the issue of "rotation" in the matter of "reservation", for Panchayat elections, under the Constitution of India, has been left to the wisdom of individual States. In so for as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, our attention was invited to Article 243D of the Constitution of India. Article 243D is being extracted hereunder:
Article 243-D. Reservation of seats. - (1) Seats shall be reserved for-
a) the Scheduled Castes; and
b) the Scheduled Tribes,
in every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat area or of the scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to difference constituencies in a Panchayat.
2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under Clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Schedule Tribes.
3) Note less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to difference constituencies in a Panchayat.
4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide:
Provided that the numbed of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled-Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State:
Provided further that not less than one-third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women:
Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level.
5) The reservation of seats under Clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chair persons (Other than the reservation of women) under Clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in Article 334.
6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or offices of Charipersons in the Panchayats at any level in favour in favour of backward class of citizens.
Based on the term ''may'' with reference to "rotation", in the matter of "reservation" in different constituencies in Panchayats, it was sought to be asserted, that the mandate expressed in Article 243D, must be considered to be discretionary. As against the aforesaid, it was pointed out, that for all other matters the term ''shall'' has been used in Article 243D of the Constitution of India, showing the distinction contemplated, in matters for which, a binding effect was to be depicted. It is, therefore, submitted, that the issue of "rotation" for purposes of "reservation", has been left, to be determined by each State Government by itself, by exercising its own discretion.
14. This takes us to the "second" facet of the third submission, for which learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 162 aforementioned, is reproduced hereunder:
Section 162. Reservation of seats: (1) Seats [shall be reserved by the [State Election Commission]] in the Zilla Panchayat. -
a) for the Scheduled Castes; and
b) for the Scheduled Tribes;
and number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the Zilla Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the district or of the Scheduled Tribes in the district bears to the total population of the district:
Provided that at least one seat each shall be reserved in a Zilla Panchayat for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.]
(2) Such number of seats which shall, as nearly as may be one - third of the total number of seats in a Zilla Panchayat [shall be reserved by the (State Election Commission]] for persons belonging to the Backward Classes:
(Provided that out of the seats reserved under this Sub-section, eighty per cent of the total number of such seats (shall be reserved by the [State Election Commission]] for the persons falling under category ''A'' and the remaining twenty per cent of the seats [shall be reserved by the [State Election Commission]] for the persons falling under category ''B''].
(3) Not less than one third of the seats reserved for each category of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and those of the non-reserved seats in a Zilla Panchayat [shall be reserved by the [State Election Commission]] for women:
Provided that the seat reserved under Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the district:
Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women for whom seats have been reserved in a Zilla Panchayat from standing for election to the non-reserved seat in such Zilla Panchayat.
It is the common case of the rival parties, that the first proviso under Sub-section (3) of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, postulates "rotation" of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [under Sub-section (1)], for Backward Classes [under Sub-section (2)], and for Women [(under Sub-section (3)]. Based on the aforesaid, it is not disputed before us, that the State of Karnataka, in the exercise of discretion under Article 243D of the Constitution of India, while providing "reservation" in the matter of Panchayat elections, also provided for "rotation". It was further the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that "rotation" in "reservations" was given effect to through the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998.
15. The "third" facet of the third contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant, was based on the Reservation by Rotation Rules 1998, wherein learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on Rule-3. Rule-3 aforementioned, is being extracted hereunder:
Rule 3. Reservation of seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by rotation:(1)(a) Out of the seats reserved for the persons belonging to the Schedule Tribes in a Zilla Panchayat (the State Election Commission) shall allot by rotation one seat each to the Taluks to the District giving precedence to the taluks having larger population of Scheduled Tribes:
Provided that where the number of seats reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes exceeds the number of taluks in the district, the seats remaining after allocation under this clause shall again be allotted to taluks giving precedence to those having larger population of Scheduled Tribes:
Provided further that while allotting such seats to the constituencies within a taluk precedence shall be given to the constituencies having larger population of Schedule Tribes:
(Provided also that at least one seat each shall be reserved in a Zilla Panchayat for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.)
(b) The seats reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in a Taluk Panchayat shall be allotted by (the State Election Commissioner) by rotation to the constituencies having the highest percentage of population with reference to the population of the taluk, in which seats have not been allotted to them in the previous term:)
(Provided that at least one seat each shall be reserved in a Taluk Panchayat for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.)
2) The seats reserved for Scheduled Castes in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats shall be allotted by rotation (x x x x x) to the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes in the same manner as specified in Sub-rule (1) above.
3) The seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats reserved for Backward Classes (x x x x x) shall be allotted by rotation (by the State Election Commission after taking into consideration such factors as it may deem fit).
4) The seats reserved for women in each category referred to in Sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) shall be allotted by rotation (by the State Election Commissioner after taking into consideration such factors as it may deem fit)
Provided that where a seat in a constituency of the Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat was allotted to a category referred to in Sub-rules (1), (2) or (3) or for a women during the previous term, (the State Election Commissioner) shall not as far as possible allot a seat in that constituency to the same category or for a woman in the succeeding term.
Based on the rotation stipulated under Rule 3, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the mandate of "rotation" contemplated u/s 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, stands fully implemented through Rule-3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. It is the pointed contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that while determining reserved constituencies for the upcoming Panchayat elections, the procedure of earmarking reserved vacancies under Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, has been followed in letter and spirit.
16. The "fourth" facet of the third contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, was based on a conjoint reading of Sections 161 and 163 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Sections 161 and 163 are being extracted hereunder:
Section 161. Determination of elected members after census. - Upon the publication of figures of each census, the number of elected members of a Zilla Panchayat [shall be determined by the [State Election Commission]] on the basis of the population of the district as ascertained at that census:
Provided that the determination of the number as aforesaid shall not affect the then composition of the Zilla Panchayat until the expiry of the term of office of the elected members then in office.
163. Delimination of territorial constituencies
State Election Commission shall, notification:
(a) divide the area within the jurisdiction of every Zilla Panchayat, for the purpose of election to such Zilla Panchayat into as many single member territorial, constituencies as the number of members required to be elected u/s 160;
(b) determine the extent of each territorial constituency which shall be a taluk or part of a taluk; and
(c) determine the territorial constituency or constituencies in which seats are reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and for women.
Based on the aforesaid two provisions, it was sought to be asserted at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that after the culmination of every census operation, the constitution and composition of the Zilla Panchayats has to be redetermined. However, in view of the proviso u/s 161 of the Panchayat Raj Act, despite the holding of a fresh census, the existing composition of the Zilla Panchayat is required to be maintained as it was (prior to the census), until the expiry of the term of office of the existing elected members. It is, therefore, necessarily emerges, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the process census would result in delimitation of constituencies, which would in turn have an effect, not only on the composition of the Zilla Panchayats, but also on the Taluk Panchayats.
17. In order to substantiate the aforesaid aspect of the matter, learned Counsel for the Appellant, handed over to us during the course of hearing, a compilation indicating the number of constituencies in Zilla Panchayats, district-wise, during the years 2000, 2005 and 2010. The aforesaid compilation was taken on record and marked as "Annexure-A". Based on the aforesaid compilation, reference was made by way of illustration reference was made to the Bangalore Urban District, whereunder, the number of constituencies in the year 2000 were 17, the number of constituencies came to be increased to 26 in in the year 2005, and further to 34 in the year 2010. Illustratively again, reference was made to the Bangalore Rural District, wherein the constituencies in the year 2000 were 38, which came to be increased to 40 in the year 2005, but came to be substantially reduced to 18 in the year 2010. Based on the aforesaid illustrations, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the aforesaid changes, would have a bearing, not only on the issue of "reservation", but also on the issue of "rotation" (in the process of reservation). In so far as the Davangere District is concerned (with pointed reference whereof, Respondent No. 1 had preferred W.P. No. 36337 of 2010), it was the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that in the year 2000, the number of constituencies for Davangere were 31, but the constituencies increased to 34 in the year 2005, and remain unaltered at 34 even in the year 2010.
18. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Appellant, also handed over to us, a comparative statement of delimitation of Davangere Zilla Panchayat Constituencies from the year 1993 to 2005. The aforesaid comparison statement was taken on record and marked as "Annexure-B". Inviting the Court''s attention to "Annexure-B" learned Counsel for the Appellant contended, that various villages from particular constituencies came to be taken out during the course of delimitation, so as to be added to other constituencies. These changes made, from time to time, resulted in a change/alteration of individual constituencies of Taluk Panchayats. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, these changes were bound to affect "reservation" and "rotation" therein, while earmarking constituencies for giving effect to Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. As such, it was sought to be canvassed, that each census and delimitation, has a bearing on the process of "reservation" and "rotation".
19. The "fifth" facet of the third contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, was based on another vital fact brought to our notice, with reference to Sections 161 and 163 of the Pachayat Raj Act. It was the undisputed position between the rival parties, that delimitation was carried out in the State of Karnataka in the year 2005, which was given effect to in the Panchayat elections, which were conducted in the same year, i.e. 2005. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the issue of delimitation is of a substantial significance, for the implementation of "reservation'''' and "rotation" contemplated by Section 162(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, inasmuch as, the number of constituencies to be filled by reservations has to be calculated, as a matter of first step, under Sub-rule (1) of Rule (3) of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, for Scheduled Tribe candidates after every census and delimitation. Process of reservation is required to be replicated for Schedule Cates, Backward Classes and Women candidates (as a matter of first step) under Sub-Rules (2), (3) and (4) respectively of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. It is acknowledged at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that after determining the specific manner of reserving seats for constituencies, both at the Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat levels, the proviso under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, provides for the "rotation" individually for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Women, by providing that, the category out of which a seat in a constituency has been filled up during the immediately preceding term, as far as possible, will not be filled up from the same category in the next electoral process. By this, it is submitted, that the "rotation" in "''reservation", in the process of Panchayat elections, has been given effect to.
20. So as to summarise the eventual conclusions sought to be drawn by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, which we shall refer to as the "sixth" facet of his third submission, it was asserted, that the "rotation" contemplated u/s 162(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, has been given full and complete effect by the State Election Commission, ie., the Appellant herein, as per the mandate of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. And for doing so, the starting point has been taken as the year 2005, when the election process was conducted for the first time, after the culmination of census, and delimitation of Taluk Panchayat constituencies. Since the election process of 2005 was taken as the first point for reservation, the said reservations were made for Scheduled Tribes (under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rufles, 1998) for Scheduled Castes in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998), for Backward Classes in terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998), and for women in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. Whereas, for the instant process of election, which is to be held in 2010, the "reservation" and "rotation" has been made in terms of the proviso under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, it has been ensured, that the constituencies filled up by reservation, during the preceding electoral process (held in 2005) by providing for reservation for a particular category, are not reserved for the same category in the upcoming Panchayat elections (to be held in 2010). Thus viewed, it is submitted, that the Appellant herein, must be deemed to have given effect to the "rotation" contemplated under the Panchayat Raj Act, read with, the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998.
21. Having gone through the pleadings filed by Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 36337/10, we find that the claim raised on behalf of Respondent No. 1, was sought to be substantiated on the basis of the assumption, that the starting point should be the election process of the year 1995, and not, the election process held in the year 2005 (as in the case of the learned Counsel for the Appellant before us). Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced on the instant aspect of the matter, we are satisfied that the initial reservation for filling up constituencies by way of reservation under Sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, has to commence only from the electoral process conducted in the year 2005. This conclusion of ours is based on the proviso to Section 161 of the Panchayat Raj Act, which mandates, that the conduct of a census would not affect the composition of a Panchayat, until the expiry of the term of office of the elected members. Stated in other words it would mean, that it has to be given effect to in the next election. The aforesaid inference can also be drawn from Clause (c) of Section 163, which envisages, that the delimitation of territorial constituencies, in which seats are to be reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Women, has a direct nexus to the direct bearing on reservation in different constituencies. It is not possible for us to over look the factual position depicted in "Annexures-A" and "B", wherein, the constituencies of a District can vary marginally or substantially from time to time. The variation may be in the nature of an increase, or alternatively, as a matter of decrease in the number of constituencies in a Zilla Panchayat and/or Taluk Panchayat. We are, therefore, satisfied, that for implementation of "reservation", 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.
22. Having drawn our first conclusion, we shall now deal with another aspect emerging out of the third contention, advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. During the course of hearing, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the process of rotation contemplated u/s 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act has been given effect to through Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, whereas, it was sought to be canvassed at the hands of Respondent No. 1, that Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998, does not fully implement the mandate of reservation and rotation provided for u/s 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is not possible for us to adjudicate the present issue canvassed at the hands of the learned Counsel for the first Respondent. This determination of ourselves is based on the bar to interfere by Courts, in electoral matters, reference to which has been made herein above, based on Article 243O of the Constitution of India. Since the contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, as soon as, it transgresses into the area, wherein the validity of a law is subject matter of challenge on the issue of allotment of seats, the bar contemplated under Article 243O would prevent us from adjudicating upon the matter It is not necessary to examine this issue, because of the repeated assertion of the learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 1, that he claims only the enforcement of the provision of law.
23. But then, it is necessary to notice here, that during the course of hearing it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for Respondent. No. 1, that all that Respondent No. 1 desired to seek by filing Writ Petition No. 36337 of 2010 was, to enforce the "reservation" as also "rotation" contemplated u/s 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules 1998. This also takes us to the next aspect of the matter, arising out of the third submission advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, namely, whether the Appellant while issuing the impugned Notification dated 08.11.2010 had given effect to "rotation" in the matter of "reservation"? For the instant determination, we must revert back to the first conclusion arrived at by us hereinabove, namely, that the issue of "reservation", as also "rotation", has to commence from the electoral process conducted in the year 2005, based on census operations and determination conducted immediately prior thereto. Based on the aforesaid, it is also necessary to record, that after the election process was conducted in the year 2005, the next process of election is the one, which is subject matter of challenge before us (to be conducted in 2010). The issue confronting us is, whether "rotation" has been given effect to in the instant, second electoral process within the frame work of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, read with, Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998? The instant controversy (raised by Respondent No. 1) refers to the reservation in Anagodu Constituency in Davanegere District. From the chart which is taken on record as Annexure-B, the learned Counsel for the Appellant point out to us the number of villages that have been shifted out of, and also certain other villages which have been shifted into Anagodu constituency in the year 2005, which has altered its composition substantially. Hence, in the year 2005, the said constituency was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, during the present electoral process the said constituency is reserved for Schedule Tribe (woman) candidates. We are, therefore, satisfied that "rotation" has been given due effect to, in the impugned notification dated 08.11.2010, within the meaning of the proviso under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. In fact, it was the emphatic submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that not a single reserved constituency has been allotted in the present electoral process, to the same reserved category to which it was assigned in the elections held in 2005. There is therefore no scope for any doubt, that in the present election process "rotation" has been given effect to in the matter of "reservation" as has been contemplated under the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998.
24. Our last determination, in so far as the implementation of "rotation'' in the matter of "reservation" contemplated under Article 243D of the Constitution of India is, in affirmation of the submission advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. On a perusal of Article 243D aforementioned, we are satisfied, that the matter of providing for "rotation" in "reservations" in Panchayat elections, has been left to the individual discretion of State legislatures. The Karnataka Legislature provided for "rotation" in the matter of "reservation" in Panchayat elections, through the proviso under Sub-section (3) of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act, and gave effect to it, through the proviso under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998. We are satisfied, that "rotation" provided for, has been followed in the notifications issued by the State Election Commission.
25. Thus viewed, as a matter of consideration of the claim of the Appellant on merits, we are satisfied, that the determination by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2010 is liable to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. The impugned notification dated 08.11.2010 is, therefore, hereby held to be in consonance with the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, as also, the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998.
