HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. RETG OFFICER TMC CHITTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the delimitation of the Divisions under Section 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, for the purpose of holding elections to Chittapur Town Municipal Council Gulbarga District. As evidenced by Annexure-A, There are five divisions, all of them carrving 3 seats each.

(2.) The petitioner's grievance is that Division No. 2 has voters numbering about 1330, while in the other divisions the number of voters are slightly in excess of 3000 or 2000. It is therefore, contended that the delimitation or the Divisions created for the purposes of the election within the municipality violates the mandate of S. 13 of the Kamataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

(3.) Nothing under S. 13 can be considered as a mandate to the Government to divide the divisions consisting of equal number of voters. But the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that it puts at an advantage a call didate contesting, in that division which has the least number of voters as against the candidates in the larger divisions where they have to spend more money and canvass with more S. 13-Requirement of. voters. I am unable to understand the logic of that argument because the petitioner has a choice to contest from that smaller division, which has the least number of voters. There is no bar for him to contest from the division which has smaller number of voters. Despite specific oral directions given to the counsel to place some material on record to show that special consideration is shown to form a smaller Second Division with 1300 voters, he has not placed any material except to point out that the polling stations are located in the same building for parts of two divisions. I do not know how that information helps either the petitioner or the court to hold that there has been discrimination. The population of a division should not be mistaken for the voters. Voters are those who are above the age of 18 years, whereas the population consists of all the people within the municipal limits. By mere freak of chance if in any division the number of voters are less, it may be because the number of people living there are less than 18 years of age and are not voters. That is only a surmise. The court cannot act on surmises. There must be some other reason why the number of Voters there, are less. If that reason is not disclosed to the court by the petitioner on whom the burden lies, his contention is liable to be rejected.