GANGOLTI SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the residents and voters in I Division of Shikaripur Town. Admittedly for the purpose of constituting the'Municipal Council for the town, the municipal area is divided into 5 Divisions. The petitioners' grievance is that in the delimitation made in 1975,3 seats were allotted to each of the divisions in terms of Section 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act by the State Government while exercising the power conferred on it by the legislature.

(2.) The petitioners have furnished the necessary population statistics of each Division. Undoubtedly, the 1st Division has the largest population amongst the 5 Divisions. Therefore, it is contended that ignoring the population criteria equal number of seats to each Division is allotted arbitrarily by the State Government and, therefore, it is liable to be struck down. In the circumstances they have approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that appropriate direction be given to the Government to make a delimitation notification allotting number of seats to each division in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. In other words, a direction has to be issued to the Government to keep the population as the criteria while determining the number of seats in each Division. Validity of Section 13 itself had come up for consideration before this court in Allhadad Saheb and Another v The State of Mysore and Others, ILR 1969(1) Mys. 182. This court held that it is not correct to Judge the validity of an enactment on the presence or absence of identical provisions contained in another Act.

(3.) What is necessary for the court to consider is whether the impugned provision taken with other provisions in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, provides sufficient basis or guidance for the exercise of that power or for achieving the object of that particular legislation. It further added that the Government had been given sufficient guidance both in regard to the effecting of territorial divisions as also the allotment of seats, under the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In that view of the matter this court cannot go beyond the words in the legislation, particularly Section 13 and direct delimitation which is within the discretionary power of the Government to fix the number of seats, one or more for each division, by applying or imparting judicially the criteria of population as contended by Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil. Unless the power exercised is mala fide, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved. No case of mala fide and illegality or otherwise is alleged or made out Therefore, the petitioners are not aggrieved by equal distribution of seats among the 5 Divisions. Thus they cannot move this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.