D.H. NEELAKANTA S/O LATE HONNAPPACHAR AND D.R. RAVINDRA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are assailing the Notification dated 18.1.2010. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the reservation made to the Doddamagaravalli -I and II Constituencies of Chikmagalur.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that while notifying the reserved vacancy, there is repetition, of the seat, more particularly, it is contended that insofar as Doddamagaravalli -I, in the last election one seat was assigned to Schedule Caste while in the present election two seats have been assigned to Schedule Caste, of which one is for Schedule Caste - Woman. Therefore, in this regard, there is repetition. It is further contended that even in respect of Doddamagaravalli -II, the reservation made in the earlier election is for BCMA Woman while in the present election it has been repeated for BCMA - Woman. It is therefore contended that the rotation has not been properly applied and as such, the said seats would have to be shifted to the other Constituencies so that there is rotation of the reserved seats and other categories would represent the said constituencies. Hence, it is contended that the Notification is not sustainable.

(3.) IN the light of what has been contended, insofar as the manner of reservation of scats and also allocation of seats to different categories, the position of law is clear and in any event, there is no dispute with regard to that aspect of the matter. However, in order to appreciate as to whether the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no proper rotation, a perusal of the notification would no doubt indicate that insofar as Doddamagaravalli -I, in the present election, two seats have been reserved to Schedule Caste. One among the same is reserved to Schedule Caste -Woman. In the elections for the year 2005, only one seat had been reserved to the Schedule Caste which was for General. Therefore, only the said seal is to be considered as a repetition. When this aspect is kept in view, though it could have been an error that in the earlier election, two seats had been reserved for General to Doddamagaravalli -I, one seat has been shifted from the said constituency to Doddamagaravalli -II. Therefore, all the three constituencies of Doddamagaravalli have been assigned one seat of General and the seat assigned to Doddamagaravlli -III is that for General -Woman, if this aspect is kept in view when the General seat is assigned to Doddamagaravalli -I and II and when the petitioners claim that they are the residents of Doddamagaravalli -I and II, their right to contest in any way has not been defeated Further, even though it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the seats assigned for Schedule Tribe and the BCMB also should have been shifted, so that there would not have been repetition of Schedule Caste in Doddamagaravalli -I, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that there are three seats for Schedule Caste and three seats for General and also two seats for BCMA and when the category of Schedule Tribe and BCMB has a lone seat while rotating the same either one of the constituencies is likely to get repented seats. Therefore, keeping these aspects in view, if the manner of rotation as made by the respondents while assigning the seats in the present election is considered, the same cannot be said as if the rotation has been thrown to the winds. In any case, there is no glaring irregularity so as to call for interference.