RAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed by the elected councillors of city municipal councils and town municipal councils in the state of Karnataka seeking to strike down sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 of the Karnataka municipalities (president and vice-president) election (Amendment) rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') as ultra vires and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and to quash the notifications bearing No. Udd 47 mlr 2001, dated 30-5-2001 and udd 47 mlr 2001 dated 2-6-2001.

(2.) IN order to answer the legal questions raised in these writ petitions, certain brief facts are stated as under: the state government in exercise of its legislative power under article 243-t (4) and (6) of the Constitution inserted sub-section (2-a) to Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), providing for reservation to the offices of president and vice-president in the municipal councils and town panchayats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women. The third proviso to clause (c) provides that the offices so reserved to various categories shall be allotted by rotation in the manner prescribed to different municipal councils and town panchayats in the state. We are concerned with Rule 13 of the rules. Sub-rule (1) provides for reservation as specified in the table therein. Sub-rules (2) to (5) prescribes the manner in which such reservation shall be made. Sub- Rule (6) which is sought to be struck down will be extracted at the appropriate place. Invoking the power under sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 of the rules, the state government issued notification dated 30-5-2001 allotting offices of president and vice-president in the municipal councils and town panchayats to various categories as enumerated in annexures-i to iii to the said notification. By another notification dated 2-6-2001 the state government modified certain reservations, which are clearly mentioned therein. Petitioners are seeking to quash the said notifications urging various legal grounds.

(3.) THE principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 13 (6) confers unguided, unbridled power upon the state government and consequently the notifications issued by it are without any relevant material basis. According to them, the above said sub-rule provides for arbitrary and unbridled power on the state government and the same is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and they have placed strong reliance upon the law declared by the Supreme Court in various cases which will be adverted to in this judgment. In other words, there is no declared policy by the state government in the matter of allotting reservations to the chairpersons of various reserved categories as provided under the provisions of Section 42, sub-section (2-a) and proviso to clause (c) of that sub-section of the act in respect of municipal councils and town panchayats. It has been argued that Section 323 of the act confers power upon the state government to frame rules for effective implementation of the intentment of the constitutional mandate as provided under article 243-t of the Constitution and Section 42, sub-section (2-a), proviso to clause (c) of the act. Sub-section (6) of Section 323 of the act mandates that every Rule so made shall be laid before each house of the state legislature in the manner provided therein. The said Rule has been held to be mandatory by the full bench of this court in W. P. Nos. 3893 and 3894 of 1998 and connected writ appeals disposed of on 11-2-1999 (r. Prasanna kumar and another v state of Karnataka and others ). It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 of the rules is in the nature of delegation of power to the state government which is not permissible in law. In support of this submission, Mr. Ashok haranahalli appearing for some of the writ petitioners has placed reliance upon a passage at page 550 of principles of statutory interpretation, fourth edition, authorised by Justice guru prasanna singh. The learned counsel contends that therefore the Rule in question is bad in law and is liable to be struck down.