H SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, wherein mainly persons elected as Councilors to various City Municipal Councils in the State figure as petitioners, the question that is involved is as to whether the Government Notification no. UDD 51 MLR 2004 (P-1), dated 1-9-2004 issued by the first respondent-State for the purposes of Section 42 (2-A) of the Karnataka municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') providing for reservation of the posts of 'president' and 'vice-President' in various City Municipal councils; is in conformity with the very provisions, namely, Section 42 (2-A) of the Act and if not as to whether any intervention is called for.

(2.) WHILE it is the assertion of some of the petitioners that the reservations as provided in terms of Notification dated 1-9-2004 bristles with various anomalies, discrepancies, virtually flouting the very provisions; that while in respect of some of the Councils, the reservation had been provided in excess, in the sense that, the reservation has been provided repetitively. Complaint of some of the other petitioners not falling in this category is that there is a lacking in providing such reservation; that by not providing reservation in favour of a category statutorily provided for, reservation is being deprived in violation of the enabling provision; that permitting the State Government to go ahead with the conduct of the election to the post of 'president' and 'vice-President' in such Municipal Councils will only allow the respondents to perpetuate illegality and to the detriment of the petitioners that it calls for correction at the earliest and at any rate before the elections can be held.

(3.) WHILE under the enabling provisions of Section 42 (2-A) of the Act, enacted by way of amendment through Act No. 36 of 1994, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 243-T of the constitution of India and that the reservation as required is sought to be ensured and for a fair distribution amongst the various Councils by rotating the same, the allegation is that the notification virtually defeats not only the constitutional mandate under Article 243-T, but also the implementative statutory provision of Section 42 (2-A) of the Act by providing reservation in a manner not in consonance with the statutory provisions.