1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA

W.P.No.44458/2012 (LB-ELE) a/w

W.P.Nos.45130/2012, 45269/2012, 45154/2012, 44975-44976/2012, 44949/2012, 44651/2012, 44621/2012, 44557/2012, 44399-44792/2012,

47974/2012, 47915/2012, 47580/2012, 47026/2012, 46573/2012, 46506/2012,

42775/2012, 44396-44397/2012, 47727/2012, 45440/2012, 45565/2012, 45602/2012, 45628/2012, 45733-45737/2012, 45993-

45994/2012, 47801-47802/2012 & 47509/2012

W.P.NO.44458/2012 BETWEEN: LAKSHMI DEVI W/O MURAGESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER, KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KULAMBI VILLAGE, TALUK:HONALLI DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S.HOSAMATH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DAVANAGERE, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 001.

2 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.

2

3 THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION K S C M F BUILDING, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 52.

4. SECRETARY KULAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KULAMBI VILLAGE TQ:HONALLI, DIST:DAVANAGERE PIN : 577 219.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.

W.P.No.45130/2012 BETWEEN: 1. N MAHESHWARAPPA

S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

2. S G DUSHYANTAPPA S/O S G CHANNABASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

3. B K VAMADEVAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA AGED 47 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

4. THIPPESWAMY NAIK S/O ONKARA NAIK AGED 51 YEARS, R/O NARENAHALLI VILLAGE,

3

JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

5. RAJU S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED 39 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

6. S K MANJUNATH S/O KARIYAPPA AGED 41 YEARS, R/O MUCHANUR VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

7. SHEKHARAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

8. C G NAGARAJ S/O GONAPPA AGED 36 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

9. CHANDRAMMA W/O MARULAPPA AGED 45 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

10. ASHA W/O YALLAPPA AGED 30 YEARS, R/O CHADURAGOLLA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

11. SHOBHA W/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, R/O MUGGIDARAGIHALLI, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

12. BASAMMA W/O K S REVANASIDDAPPA AGED 35 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

4

13. SHARADA BAI W/O RAJANAIK AGED 40 YEARS, R/O NARASIMHA RAJA PURA, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.

14. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED 42 YEARS, R/O HALEKAL VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. (ALL ARE MEMBERS OF HALEKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST.)

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE -01.

2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

BANGALORE-01. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DAVANGERE DIST., DAVANGERE-577 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. W.P.NO.45269/2012 BETWEEN: SMT K.P.RATHNAMMA W/O K.P.RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

5

PRESIDENT OF TALUK PANCHAYATH OF HONNALI TALUK, R/O KULAGATTA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DIST. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEP.OF PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. THE DIRECTOR (PANCHAYATH RAJ) AND EX-OFFICE JOINT SECRETARY

DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB-DIVISION DAVANGERE,

DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

TALUK PANCHAYATH HONALLI HONALLI TALUK, DAVANGER DISTRICT-577 215. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1- 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: DIRECT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT INSIST FOR HER RESIGNATION BEFORE EXPIRING TERM OF TWENTY MONTHS.

W.P.NO.45154/2012 BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA W/O SRI NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT A CHOLENAHALLI VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI

6

CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY M/s S.RAJU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, K.S.C.M.F.(BACKSIDE) CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 52.

4 THE TAHSILDAR

CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

5 KUMBENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHANNARAYANAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, 2 & 4 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.09.12 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST, HASSAN AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44975-44976/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SMT SARASWATHI

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O AMARANARAYANA PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

7

2 SMT MANJULA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O MAHADEV PANCHAYATH MEMBER MASTI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G.GANGI REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR – 563 101.

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ELECTIONS TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR – 563 101. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE ANNEXURE-H DATED 09.10.12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR. W.P.NO.44949/2012 BETWEEN: S.B.ROOPA W/O SRI NANDISH AGED 26 YEARS HARANAHALLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR M/S ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEP.OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND

8

PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 3 THE TAHSILDAR

ARASIKERE TALUK ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

4 HARANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARASIKERE TALUK, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERTAINS TO THE HARANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH. W.P.NO.44651/2012 BETWEEN:

SMT RENUKAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS MEMBER, JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, R/O HOUSE NO.41, VEERAVVA NAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE, JANAKAL POST, HOSADURGA TALUK -577 527. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)

AND :

1 KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION KSCMF BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052. REP.BY ITS CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER.

9

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA -577 501. 3 THE RETURNING OFFICER

GRAMA PANCHAYATH ELECTION OF JANAKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND THE TAHASILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 527.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G. FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

W.P.NO.44621/2012 BETWEEN: SRI G.B.PALEGOWDA S/O G.S.BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V.N.JAGADEESH, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 01. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

10

3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 501.

4 SECRETARY

AREHALLI GRAMA PACHAYATH AREHALLI, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 526. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM R-2 & 3 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN ISSUING NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ANNEXURE-L DATED 09.10.12 MADE IN NO.ELC.CR.82-6/12-13 ISSUED BY THE R3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS AREHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AND ETC. W.P.NO.44557/2012

BETWEEN: SRI CHIKKABYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE BYLAPPA NO.169, BHYRESHWARA NILAYA, LAKSHMIPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560 097. ... PETITIONER

(BY M/S S.B.MUKKANNAPPA & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) AND :

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER

BANGALORE DISTRICT. BANGALORE – 560 001.

11

3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

ZILLA PANCHAYATH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.

4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KGID BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. REP.BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4 )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.12 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RESERVATION FOR SECOND TERM FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT GENERAL (L) & VICE PRESIDENT BCM (A) TO SOMASHETTIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC. W.P.Nos.44399-44792/2012

BETWEEN:

1. SRI O.G.BASAVARAJ S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O MARADIDEVIGERE VILLAGE IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 2. SRI K.J.KENCHAPPA

S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O KALAHALLI, IMANGALA POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

BY ITS COMMISSIONER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

12

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R 2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1 )

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 09.10.12 WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON 10.10.12 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

W.P.NO.47974/2012 BETWEEN: SRI T.BALAPPA S/O AJJAGALA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MEMBER, THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH R/O THORANAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. T.SRIDHARA & SRI R.SHASHIDHAR, ADVS.) AND :

1 THE SECRETARY THORANAGATTE GRAM PANCHAYATH JAGALUR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE – 577 501.

3 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CUNNINGUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 01.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)

13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

W.P.NO.47915/2012 BETWEEN: SMT GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O SRI V.SRINIVASAMURTHY MEMBER OF MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT THIRUMALENEHALLI VILLAGE, MANDUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 049. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.) AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE – 560 009.

3 MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP.BY ITS SECRETARY MANDUR POST, MANDUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 049.

4 STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

No.8, 1ST FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)

14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE DY.COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

W.P.NO.47580/2012 BETWEEN: Sri M.K.LAKSHMAN NAIK S/O KALA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O ALAGHATTA LAMBANI TANDA BALLALA SAMUNDRA VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-587333. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.PRAKASH, ADV.)

AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, BANGALORE – 560 001.

3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 597 333.

4 THE SECRETARY

BALLALA SAMUNDRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 597 333.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &3 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2)

15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

W.P.NO.47026/2012 BETWEEN: H.D.KRISHNAPPA S/O DYAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HANIYURU VILLAGE DODDATUMKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE – 561 203. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

3 SONNENAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

4 COMMISSIONER

STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.2012 PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

16

W.P.NO.46573/2012 BETWEEN:

MR.KUNDURAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE ARAVAPPA R/AT KATANAYAKANAPURA VIDYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI J.C.KUMAR, ADV.) AND :

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001.

3 H.GOLLAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK DISTRICT. BY ITS SECRETARY.

4 COMMISSIONER

STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

W.P.NO.46506/2012 BETWEEN: SRI S.OMKARA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SABALADA GIDDAPPA @ HANUMAPPA

17

R/O THOPURU MALIGE VILLAGE & POST – 577 524. CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.K.VASANTH, ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. CHITRADURGA 577 501.

2 THE DYAMMAVVANAHALLY GRAMA

PANCHAYATH DYAMAVVANAHALLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. REP.BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY.

3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR RECORDS No.ELEC.CR.82-3/12-13 DATED 09.10.12 ON THE FILE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT AND ETC.

W.P.NO.42775/2012 BETWEEN: SRI D M CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MALLESHAPPA .M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT DUMMI, 1ST BLOCK, DUMMI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI L.SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.)

18

AND : 1 STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501.

3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

W.P.Nos.44396-44397/2012 BETWEEN: 1 SRI D.R.BASAVARAJ S/O D.S.RAJASEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/OF HIREHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 2 SRI M.B.MUDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O CHIKKAHALLI, BYADAREDDIHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADV.) AND : 1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

19

Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 501. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R2 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R1)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

W.P.No.47727/2012 BETWEEN: SRINIVASA M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED 38 YEARS LAXMI SAGARA VILLAGE NERALURU POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUMANA BALIGA.M. ADV.) AND : 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2 KARNATAKA STATE

ELECTION COMMISSION No.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.M.NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G.FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI K.N.PHANINDRA, ADV., FOR R2)

THIIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO: QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

20

W.P.No.45440/2012 BETWEEN : 1. R RAVINDRA

S/O M.V. MUNIYAPPA AGED 49 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF N. HOSAHALLI BAYALA NARASAPURA POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

PIN-562 114 2. H N DHARMESH S/O NARAYANAPPA

AGED 43 YEARS MEMBER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI AND ALSO RESIDENT OF KONDARAHALLI NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 114 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01

2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

K.C.M.F. BUILDING CUNNINGHAM ROAD NEAR CHANDRIKA HOTEL BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER

21

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOCATION / RESERVATION OF ADHYAKSHA IN FAVOUR OF GENERAL LADY IN RESPECT OF NANDAGUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED 12.10.2012.

W.P.No.45565/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O JOGISIDDAIAH AGED 40 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER NO.205, HANCHYA VILLAGE RAMMANAHALLI POST MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

OF KARNATAKA CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL..AG., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE

22

R2, VIDE ANN-C INSOFAR AS THE ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION TO THE POST OF PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT OF HANCHYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN MYSORE TALUK.

W.P.No.45602/2012 BETWEEN : H.C. JAGADISH S/O H CHANNAPPA AGE:43 YEARS R/O PALLAGATTE VILLAGE JAGALUR TALUK DAVANGERE DIST. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N PRAVEEN KUMAR & SRI C SHIVAKUMAR, ADVS.) AND : 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTI-STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-01

2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

NO.1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE-577 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R3, INSOFAR AS RESERVING THE POST OF ADHYAKSHA OF PALLAGATTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-D BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

23

W.P.No.45628/2012 BETWEEN : SRI C.S. BYRAJU S/O SANNAKALAIAH AGED 47 YEARS GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER CHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND : 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION OF KARNATAKA

CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R-2 SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R-1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANX-B INSOFAR AS ALLOTMENT OF RESERVATION OF THE POST OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ICHANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN HOLENARASIPURA TALUK.

W.P.Nos.45733-45737/2012 BETWEEN : 1. SRI S T CHANDREGOWDA

S/O S S THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O SIRAGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST,

24

CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.

2. SRI. D S LAKSHMANA S/O SHANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O DUMMIGERE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.

3. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O JAYAPPA SETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A DAMMADHALLI MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101.

4. SRI. ANAND S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KESUVINAMANE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101

5. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SATHEESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SIRANGUNDA VILLAGE, MUGATHIHALLI POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. ... PETITIONERS

(BY M/S. A SHIVARAMA & ASSTS., ADVS.)

AND :

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR DIST., CHICKMAGALUR-577 101.

25

3. THE SECRETARY MUGATHIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALDUR, CHICKMAGALUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DIST.-577 101. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R2 DATED 17.10.12 VIDE ANNX-L SOFAR AS R3 GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED & DIRECT THE R2 TO MODIFY THE LIST DATED 17.10.12 ANNX-L IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW U/S 44 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT 1993 AND RULE 4 TO APPENDIX VIII OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ RULES AS PER DIRECTIONS/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND ETC., W.P.Nos.45993-45994/2012 BETWEEN :

1. H K PRAKASH S/O GIRIBASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHIKKADANA HALLI MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DIST

2. R KUMAR S/O RAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS MANUGANA HALLI BILKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NOVA BETHANIA S, ADV.)

AND :

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHRAJ, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001

26

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 570 005

3. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL..A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & 2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM DIST. COMMISSIONER MYSORE, PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER & QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C & ANNEXURE TO IT DT.5.10.12, MARKED AT ANN-C1 PASSED BY THE R2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO MANUGANANHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH IS CONCERNED AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 & 243-D OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

W.P.Nos.47801-47802/2012 BETWEEN :

1. K NARAYANAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577516

2. H BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O REVANAPPA, OCC: GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHANUVALLI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577516 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI K DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADV.)

27

AND :

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 501

2. THE TAHSILDAR

HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 503

3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

4. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R4)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.10.12, GAZETTED ON 16.10.12 ISSUED BY R1 RESERVING THE POST OF ADYAKSHA FOR BHANUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF BACKWARD CLASS-A (WOMAN) VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.

W.P.No.47509/2012 BETWEEN : SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O SHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER GRAMA PANCHAYATH HULIKATTE, RESIDING AT KAREYAGALA VILLAGE DAVANEGERE DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY M/S L SRINIVAS BABU & ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)

28

AND : 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL

DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATHARAJ M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANEGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-575 205

3. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K M NATARAJ, ADDL.A.G., FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI K N PHANINDRA, ADV. FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.10.12, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE ANN-H AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RESERVE THE POST OF PRESIDENT IN FAVOUR OF “SCH TRIBE (WOMEN)”.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

O R D E R

The petitioners in all these petitions are assailing

the reservations and the allocation of seats to different

categories for the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha

in the ensuing elections to the Grama Panchayat. In

this regard, the reservations have been made to the

Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and the BCM

category of which 80% has been reserved for BCM-A

29

and 20% to BCM-B. The remaining posts are allocated

for general category. Among the said categories, there is

vertical reservation of 50% of the posts in all categories

for women which is as per the requirement.

2. The grievance of the petitioners however is

based on the allegation of improper rotation and

allocation for the different categories which has been

effected by the notifications issued by the Deputy

Commissioners impugned in the respective cases. The

case put forth is that the reservation and rotations are

to be made as provided under Section 44 (2) of the

Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for short).

The proviso to the said section provides that the offices

reserved shall be allotted by rotations of the reserved

offices to the different Grama Panchayats for the posts

to Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha when the same are

allotted. It is therefore contended that in the impugned

notifications, reservations and allotment made to the

different Grama Panchayats would indicate that there

are repetitions of categories presently allotted as

compared to the earlier elections and therefore, the

30

requirement in the proviso has not been adhered to.

For instance, the grievance in W.P.No.44458/2012 is

that the petitioner is the member of Kulambi Grama

Panchayath, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District and

belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category. It is his case

that the reservation has not been made from 1993

onwards. The petitioner in the other petitions have

comparable grievance that the category to which they

belong has not been allotted presently and it is alleged

that the other categories are being repeated.

3. While opposing the contentions put forth in

these petitions, the respondents though have filed

objection statements in few of the writ petitions, more

particularly in W.P.No.44458/2012, apart from

justifying the notification therein that there are only two

ST seats reserved in the entire Honnali Taluk which has

to be rotated among 47 Grama Panchayats of that Taluk

and therefore, such representation would not be

possible, have further contended in all the petitions that

there is a bar contemplated under Article 243-O of the

Constitution against entertaining the instant petitions

31

and therefore the petitions should be dismissed on that

count. It is also the contention that even otherwise, the

law is well settled that in election matters, this Court

while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the

Constitution should be slow in interfering with the

notifications since the same would ultimately delay the

process of elections, if such petitions are entertained.

In the instant case, considering that large number of

Grama Panchayats are there in each Taluk, any change

effected even in one panchayath would have cascading

effect and would hamper the process of election.

4. In that view, the said question require

consideration at the outset, even before adverting to the

particular instances which have been raised in the

instant petitions to contend that there has been

repetitions or non-representation while reserving the

posts.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-

32

State and Sri K.N.Phanindra, learned counsel for the

State Election Commission and perused the papers.

6. At the outset, learned Additional Advocate

General has made reference to the provisions contained

in Article 243-O of the Constitution which reads as

hereunder:

“243-O. 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.”

7. In that light, the learned Additional Advocate

General would rely on the decision rendered by a

Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner

vs. Smt.Latha & ors (W.A.No.3065/2010 and

33

connected appeals disposed of on 28.09.2010) to

which I was a member to contend that the objection

raised to oppose the writ petition in that case by relying

on Article 243-O was held justified. It is further pointed

out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar (AIR

2000 SC 2979) has held that this Court will not

interfere with the election process.

8. Having noticed the provision contained in

Article 243-O of the Constitution, it is also to be noticed

that in the instant case, the election notification has not

yet been issued and the calendar of events is not

declared nor is it a situation of challenging any election

already held. Furthermore, the petitioners are not

assailing any law relating to elections as stated in

Article 243-O (a). Therefore, the provision as contained

in Article 243-O would indicate that the bar as

contended would not apply in the instant case.

However, since the decision in the case of Smt. Latha

& Ors (supra) has been relied on by the learned

Additional Advocate General, another decision of the

34

same Division Bench of this Court to which also I was a

member requires to be referred to. In that decision in

the case of Karnataka State Election Commission vs.

G.Sannappa and others (2011(1) AIR Kar 820) the

Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

“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 243-O

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

243-O(a).

7. A closer examination of Article 243-O (a)

reveals, that the bar contemplated under Article

243-O 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

35

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 243-

O (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.”

9. It would therefore be clear that the Division

Bench has held that in the circumstance where the

notification relating to the rotation of reserved posts has

been challenged before the issue of notification for

election, the bar would not apply. In that view, the

decision in the case of Smt. Latha and others (supra)

relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General

would not be of assistance since the Division Bench by

the subsequent order dated 03.12.2010 by making

detailed reference to Article 243-O (a) and (b) has held

that it would not act as a bar. The subsequent decision

of the Division Bench would therefore be more apt. The

36

decision in the case of Ashok Kumar would not be

relevant insofar as considering the question of bar as

contemplated under Article 243-O though it could be

relevant for the second part of consideration by this

Court which would be made herein subsequently.

10. Therefore, keeping the said aspects in view

and considering the fact that in the instant case the

petitioners have approached this Court before the issue

of notification for the elections by only assailing the

notification made towards the reservation for the posts

of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to different Grama

Panchayats, it would not fall in the purview of the

circumstance indicated in Article 243-O of the

Constitution. Therefore, the bar as contemplated under

Article 243-O as contended by the learned Additional

Advocate General would not apply to the instant facts in

these case.

11. Though I have arrived at the above conclusion,

it still needs to be considered as to whether the

examination of each of the cases on the merits of the

37

contentions raised therein would result in interference

with the election process so as to hamper with the

progress of election. In such circumstance, whether

this Court should refrain from exercising the discretion

available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

also needs consideration.

12. In that regard, no doubt the learned counsel

for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in

the case of N.Kotresh vs. The State of Karnataka

and ors (W.P.No.5873/2011 and connected petitions

disposed of on 14.02.2011) and in the case of

Doddanarasimha Reddy vs. The Secretary,

Karnataka State Election Commission and ors ( ILR

1999 Kar 2831) to contend that in similar

circumstance this Court has interfered with the

notifications relating to reservation and rotation of posts

and as such there should be no impediment in the

instant cases also. The case of Narayanamma vs. The

State of Karnataka and ors (ILR 2005 Kar 2051) is

relied to point out that when there is repetition of the

38

reservations, this Court has held that the reserved posts

are to be rotated and cannot be repeated.

13. First and foremost, there can be no dispute

with regard to the fact that the reservations and rotation

is to be made as contemplated under Section 44(2) of

the Act. The provision contained in Section 44 (2) is as

hereunder.

“44. Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.-(1) Every Grama Panchayat Shall, [within one month from the date of publication of names of elected members under sub-section (8) of Section 5], [or immediately before the expiry of term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha] choose two members of the Grama Panchayat to be respectively, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. In the event of occurrence of any vacancy by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise in the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the Grama Panchayat shall choose another member to be the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha, as the case may be. (2) Subject to the general or special order of the [state Election Commission], the Deputy Commissioner shall reserve.- (a) such number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats in the State for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices bearing as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of the offices in the State 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.

39

[x x x x x]

(b) such number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyakshas of the Grama Panchayats, which shall as nearly as may be, one-third of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the State for the persons belonging to the Backward Classes: [“But the number of offices of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas reserved for the backward classes under this clause shall be so determined, that the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes under the clause (a) and the Backward classes under this clause shall not exceed fifty percent of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayats in the State.”] [Provided that out of the offices reserved under this clause eighty percent of the total number of such offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘A’ and the remaining twenty percent of the offices shall be reserved for the persons falling under category ‘B’:

Provided further that if no person falling under category ‘A’ is available, the offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category ‘B’ and vice versa],

(c) not less than [fifty percent] of the total number of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats in the State from each of the categories which are reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and of those which are non-reserved, for women: Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation to different Grama Panchayats; Explanation.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the principle of rotation for

40

purposes of reservation of offices under this section shall commence from the first election to be held after the commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.”

14. Therefore, keeping the said provisions in view,

the Election Commission has issued the notification

dated 05.09.2012 indicating the guidelines with regard

to the reservation and rotations to be provided and

effected in respect of the entire State. The number of

the reserved posts to be rotated in the Grama

Panchayats of each Taluk is also prescribed therein.

Based on the said guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner

would have to make the notification which has been

presently made in respect of the different panchayaths

in each Taluk and it is such notification which has been

impugned herein. If this aspect of the matter is kept in

view, at this stage, it is seen that the guidelines are

provided by the Election Commission and by the

subsequent notification by the Deputy Commissioner

the allocations are made. Whether that would call for

interference is the question ? No doubt, in the

circumstance which arose in the cases cited by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court had

41

interfered with the notifications which had been issued

therein when it was found that the reservation made

and rotated was not in order. At the same time, it is

also to be noticed that in the case of Narayanamma,

though this Court had laid down that there should be

rotation with regard to the posts, this Court did not

however choose to quash the notification instead it was

held that in any event the petitioner therein could have

contested from the general category. Therefore, it is

clear that this Court would have to keep the overall

circumstance in the background of the factual matrix

and consider to what extent this Court should exercise

its discretion.

15. It is in that light, the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar referred

supra becomes relevant to consider the circumstances

in which this Court should exercise its discretion to

interfere. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under:

“32. For convenience sake we would now

generally sum up our conclusions by partly

42

restating what the two Constitution Benches

have already said and then adding by clarifying

what follows therefrom in view of the analysis

made by us hereinabove:-

1) If an election, (the term ‘election’ being

widely interpreted so as to include all steps and

entire proceedings commencing from the date of

notification of election till the date of declaration

of result) is to be called in question and which

questioning may have the effect of interrupting,

obstructing or protracting the election

proceedings in any manner, the invoking of

judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the

completing of proceedings in elections.

2) Any decision sought and rendered will

not amount to “calling in question an election” if

it subserves the progress of the election and

facilitates the completion of the election.

Anything done towards completing or in

furtherance of the election proceedings cannot

be described as questioning the election.

3) Subject to the above, the action taken

or orders issued by Election Commission are

open to judicial review on the well-settled

parameters which enable judicial review of

decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case

of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being

made out or the statutory body being shown to

have acted in breach of law.

43

4) Without interrupting, obstructing or

delaying the progress of the election

proceedings, judicial intervention is available if

assistance of the Court has been sought for

merely to correct or smoothen the progress of

the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles

therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if

the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered

irretrievable by the time the results are declared

and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of

the Court.

5) The Court must be very circumspect

and act with caution while entertaining any

election dispute though not hit by the bar of

Article 329(b) but brought to it during the

pendency of election proceedings. The Court

must guard against any attempt at retarding,

interrupting, protracting or stalling of the

election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see

that there is no attempt to utilise the court’s

indulgence by filing a petition outwardly

innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or

pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end.

Needless to say that in the very nature of the

things the Court would act with reluctance and

shall not act except on a clear and strong case

for its intervention having been made out by

raising the pleas with particulars and precision

and supporting the same by necessary material.”

44

16. The guidelines laid down will clearly indicate

that though there may not be a bar in law, yet the Court

must be very circumspect while considering election

matters and judicial intervention should be made only

to smoothen the progress of election proceedings and it

should not interrupt, obstruct or delay the progress of

election proceedings.

17. In fact the guidelines which have been

indicated therein and referred to by a learned Judge of

this Court in the case of Manikreddy & Others

(W.P.No.83134-83137/2010 and connected matters

disposed of on 18.08.2010) has been pressed into

service by the learned Additional Advocate General.

This Court on referring to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was of the view that though the

notifications relating to reservation and rotation which

had been challenged could be interfered, that would

interfere with the election process and as such the

Court should be slow to entertain the petitions.

45

18. Further, the learned Additional Advocate

General has brought to the notice of this Court that

another learned Judge of this Court while considering

the challenge to the notifications making similar

reservations and rotations during the current year in

respect of the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha for

Taluk Panchayats in the case of T.S. Krishnappa and

Others –vs- State (W.P.Nos.41556-41557/2012 and

connected petitions) disposed of on 23.11.2012 was

of the view that this Court would not interfere with the

said notifications. While holding so, this Court has also

taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami vs.

Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency,

Namakkal, Salem District and ors (AIR 1952 SC

64). The learned Judge had also taken note of the

affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on

22.11.2012 indicating the manner in which the

transparency would be maintained in future by giving

opportunity to the parties who may be aggrieved by

46

such notifications. The relevant portion of the affidavit

which has been extracted reads as hereunder:

“I say that in order to maintain

transparency in giving an opportunity to the

parties aggrieved by he notification, notifying the

reservation of seats, such notification will be

published well in advance i.e., atleast 45 days

before the expiry of term of office of the

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk

Panchayaths.

I say that Section 138 of the Karnataka

Panchayat Raj Act provides reservation for the

offices of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of

Taluk Panchayats.

I say that certain developments have

taken place which have bearing on the

reservation and rotation of seats to be notified

by the State i.e., i) change in number of

Districts; ii) Change in number of Taluks; iii)

Declaration of population figures from time to

time; iv) change in SC/ST ranking of taluks; v)

amendment to Section 138 of the said Act,

making reservation in favour of women from

33% to 50%; vi) the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.Krishnamurthy’s

case reported in 2010, Section 202 and also the

order dated 14.02.2011 passed by Hon’ble Court

in W.P.No.5873/2011 and connected writ

47

petitions; vii) effect of striking down of proviso to

the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation to the

Offices of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of

the Taluk Panchayaths) Rules, 2005 and viii)

amendment to 2005 Rules, making State as an

unit for the purpose of rotating the reservation

of seats to the offices of Adhyaksha and

Upadhyaksha.

In view of these factors and also various

other factors viz., the cascading effect of various

actions committed earlier or of giving effect to

the provisions of the Act, it is practically

impossible to make reservation with

mathematical precision or accuracy.”

19. Therefore, keeping in view the position of law

and the fact situation herein, it has to be considered by

this Court as to whether in the present circumstance

this Court should interfere with the notifications.

20. First and foremost, as noticed, in respect of

the reservation of posts for Adhyaksha and

Upadhyaksha in the Taluk Panchayats, this Court while

considering the similar grievances was of the view that

the same does not call for interference. Secondly, in the

instant facts, it is seen that the elections to be held to

48

the post of Adyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama

Panchayat is in respect of 5628 Grama Panchayats.

The said Grama Panchayats are spread over 30 Districts

of the State and the total number of Grama Panchayats

in a Taluk are taken into consideration for the purpose

of reserving and rotating the posts among the Grama

Panchayats in the Taluk. For instance, in Bangalore

North Taluk alone, there are 30 Grama Panchayats

regarding which the number of posts to be reserved

have been indicated in the guidelines of the Election

Commission so as to provide the seats for Scheduled

Castes-8, Scheduled Tribe-1, BCM ‘A’ -5, BCM ‘B’-1 and

the general seats-15. Further, the reservation for the

women candidates among them is shown at 50%. The

number of such Grama Panchayats varies from 7 being

the least and 65 being the most number of Grama

Panchayats in a Taluk. Therefore, in such

circumstance, when large number of Grama Panchayats

are to elect the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and a

clear guideline has been issued by the Election

Commission and the notifications have thereafter been

49

issued by the Deputy Commissioners in this regard, at

this stage, even though the elections have not been

notified to all the Grama Panchayats, the grievance put

forth by the petitioners herein if examined and

ultimately the concerned Deputy Commissioners were to

be directed to issue fresh notification rectifying the

errors if any, the same would have to be redone by

looking into the reservations which have been made in

respect of all the Grama Panchayats in the Taluk, as

otherwise the displacement of the present reservation

and rotation is likely to cause imbalance in the

allocation of reservation and rotations which have

already been made in respect of the other Grama

Panchayats in the same Taluk. That in turn is likely to

give rise to fresh grievance to the members of the other

Grama Panchayath, which would remain a vicious

circle.

21. Therefore, the instant reservations which have

been made by the Deputy Commissioners in the

impugned notifications by relying on the guidelines

which has been issued by the State Election

50

Commission in my view cannot be scrutinized in the

writ proceedings in the nature of a fact finding exercise

so as to examine whether the rotation has been done

with mathematical precision in the manner where there

is no repetition at all in any of the Grama Panchayats.

Furthermore, there is no scope for a roving enquiry to

be made in a writ proceeding, more particularly in a

circumstance where the election process is at a stage

where the Adhyaksha and Upadhyakshas are being

elected for the 10th time after the commencement of the

process in the year 1993. Therefore, when such

rotations are being effected, there would be repetitions

to certain of the posts keeping in view the number of

posts reserved, in relation to the number of Grama

Panchayats among which it is to be rotated. Hence, any

interference at this stage by this Court would prevent

the elections being held as per schedule and further, if

interference is made, it will lead to challenge by the

members of the other Grama Panchayath who may not

be satisfied with the change made as stated above and

there can be no possibility of concluding the elections in

51

the near future. Therefore, considering these aspects of

the matter, I am of the opinion that the present cases do

not call for exercise of discretion to entertain the writ

petitions, more particularly when the petitioners in any

event if aggrieved, can avail their alternate remedy after

the elections. Moreso in the present circumstance, if

such exercise is undertaken by this Court, when the

earlier period of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha has come

to an end, any order to be passed by this Court to

modify the notifications or redo the process would only

delay the electoral process and such interference has

been frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

22. Before parting, the reference made by the

learned Additional Advocate General to the provisions

contained in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj

(Gramapanchayat Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha)

Elections Rules, 1995 whereunder the election petitions

could be instituted is also to be noticed. In that regard,

an election petition to be presented under Rule 14

would certainly include the challenge to the election of

the elected Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may

52

be, if such challenge is laid on the ground that the

petitioners who were entitled to contest based on

appropriate reservation/rotation have been denied such

opportunity. The said contention will be a ground to be

examined in the election petition in individual cases.

Therefore, the right of the petitioners in any event would

not be defeated.

23. One other contentions raised by the learned

counsel on behalf of some of the petitioners seeking

intervention of the Court is that there being no appeal

against the manner of reservations being made by the

notifications, the reservation and rotation made thereof

by the Deputy Commissioners even if arbitrary would

remain unchallenged. In this regard, first and foremost

the same would be available for challenge in an election

petition has been noticed. Even otherwise, during the

earlier part of this order, this Court has noticed and

extracted the affidavit undertaking which had been filed

on behalf of the State Government in the case relating

to the Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyakha to the

Taluk Panchayats. To allay the apprehensions of the

53

petitioners in that regard in future, a direction is issued

to the State Government to adopt the same procedure

as undertaken to be done in respect of the elections

relating to Taluk Panchayats while notifying the

reservation/rotation in respect of the elections of

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha posts in the Grama

Panchayats as well. Hence, the said affidavit

undertaking is treated as an undertaking in this regard

also to which the State Government shall remain

bound.

24. Keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the

opinion that the instant petitions do not call for further

examination and they are accordingly disposed of

reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy

in accordance with law. No Costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

akc/bms