M. RATHNAMMA SRIRAMULU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate Shri Jayakumar S. Patil appearing for the counsel for the petitioner in both these petitions.

(2.) THE petitioners are before this Court contending that they belong to a Scheduled Caste and are elected members in the constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste Women for the election held in the year 2010 as per the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KPR Act' for brevity). It is their case that in terms of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the "KPR Rules 2005"), the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha are reserved for Scheduled Caste, out of which two posts are reserved for Scheduled Caste women, which was subsequently enhanced to three posts. It is the contention of the petitioners that during the last series of rotations of reservations, on eleven occasions, no reservation has been made in respect of Scheduled Caste women either in respect of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha in their District, but it is noticed that on two occasions, for two Districts namely Belgaum and Hassan, they were reserved for President, on two occasions each, which was inexplicable. Aggrieved by the non-allotment of seats to Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for Scheduled Caste women in Bangalore Urban District Panchayath even after the 11th term of 20 months, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General Shri K.M. Nataraj appearing for the State on the other hand would candidly admit that there has been a lapse on the part of the State in issuing the notification belatedly, but otherwise he would seek to justify the notification that is issued and the reservation of the seats as intended in the notification. He would point out that the process involved is elaborate and complicated and it is therefore with great care and attention that the authorities prepare the list after examining the several permutations and combinations. Even if there was some scope for any discrepancy, it may not be a ground affording the petitioners to stall the process of the election. The petitioners are always entitled to the remedy of an Election Petition on that very ground and this is the settled legal position and further, he would submit that even the contention on merits that there has been no reservation for the seats of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha insofar as the Bangalore Urban District is concerned, is also not the correct position and he would seek to justify the rotation insofar as the parameters prescribed for such rotation and the guidelines issued in this regard as well as with reference to the provisions of the Act, to contend that there is no irregularity or discrepancy and would submit that there is ample authority for the proposition that the remedy of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, does not become available to question the act or omission of an election authority arising by a non-compliance of the provisions of the Act to challenge either such Act or omission or the result of an election taken place on the basis of such act or omission after issuance of an election notification under the Rules and that it was always open for the petitioners to challenge the election by recourse to an Election Petition as laid down in the rule if it was their case that the reservation was not in accordance with law and therefore, would submit that the petitions be dismissed.