RAJU CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner in the first of these petitions, namely W.P. 47231/2012, claims that he belongs to a Banjara/Lambani community, which is a Scheduled Caste, and he is said to be a social worker engaged in the upliftment of the weaker sections of the society. It is stated that the term of office of the Urban Local Bodies, namely the Town Panchayaths, the City Municipal Councils, the Town Municipal Councils and the City Municipal Corporations, in the State of Karnataka comes to an end in February-March 2013. The earlier elections to these bodies in the year 2007, was on the basis of the 2001 census figures. It is the case of the petitioner that the proposed elections for the said Urban Local Bodies, is decided to be conducted well before February-March 2013, as apparent from the letter dated 31.10.2012 at Annexure-"C" to the petition, by the State Election Commission.

(2.) The petitioner in the second of these petitions, namely in W.P. No. 46347/2012, is a registered organization which claims to espouse the cause of weaker sections of society, and is said to have been engaged in various social welfare activities, has also filed the petition on identical grounds as in the first of these petitions.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Shri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the counsel for the petitioners, would elaborate on the above circumstances and would seek to canvass the contention that the provisional census figures of 2011 are available. The percentage of increase in population is glaring and the notable feature being that there is hardly any negative growth. On the other hand, there are instances of a 46.68% growth during the period 2001-2011 in Bangalore Urban District and 16.02% in Bangalore Rural District, apart from other areas such as Bellary, recording a 24.92% increase, Bijapur at 20.38% and, Yadgir at 22.67% and so on. The said provisional census figures are sufficiently comprehensive to be adopted for the purpose of upgradation of the Urban-Local bodies and would place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the State of Maharashtra and others vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others, 2003 9 SCC 731 , to assert that the requirement for upgradation of the local body is, the population crossing a benchmark. When that can be assessed without any scope for debate, by publishing the population total, the law does not mandate the publication of a final population total. In the absence of any indication that there would be a marked difference between the provisional population figures and the final population figures and any difference if at all, when would only be insignificant and marginal, if reservations of seats to the respective local bodies is not made on the basis of such increased population, a large section of the population would go unrepresented, which cannot be ignored. The publication of the 2011 census figures has been delayed and the publication even according to the concerned authorities, would certainly be made by March 2013. Therefore, even if it is to be deemed that the final census figures are indeed relevant and that the provisional census figures cannot be acted upon, there is no injustice caused if the election process is postponed, to coincide with the upgradation of the local bodies, which is inevitable on the publication of the final census figures. If that however is not done, there is serious prejudice and a denial of a fundamental right of representation to a large section of people of the State, defeating a first principle of democracy.