RUDRAIAH C M Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification issued by respondent-1 dated 14-8-1986, copy of which is Annexure-B, as illegal and for a direction to respondent-1 to re-determine and allot seats for Mukkunda Mandal Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ("the Act' for short).

(2.) The essential facts are as follows: The first petitioner is a resident of Mukkunda village and the second petitioner is a resident of Singapura village of Sindhanur Taluk. The second petitioner belongs to Bovi community which is regarded as Scheduled Tribe. Respondent-1, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act, made a declaration that Mukkunda village is the headquarters of Mandal Panchayat consisting of Mukkunda and other 12 constituencies, Respondent-1 divided the Mandal Panchayat into 13 territorial constituencies comprising 6 villages with a view to conduct election to the Mandal Panchayat of Mukkunda. By exercising powers under Sec 5(2) of the Act. respondent-1 divided the Mandal Panchayat into different constituencies and allotted seats to each of the constituencies as well as to the constituencies in which the seats are reserved for S.C., S T. and women.

(3.) According to Sec.5(1) of the Act, there shall be one member for every 400 population or part thereof of the Mandal as ascertained at the preceding census. 25% of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchayat shall be reserved for women out of which ona seat shall be reserved for women belonging to SC/ST. According to Sec 5(4) of the Act, there shall be reservation for members belonging to SC/ST and the number of seats so reserved shall be on the basis of the prop&rtion to the total number of seats of the Mandal Panchayat and in any event, the reservation shall not be less than 18% of total number of seats in the Mandal Panchayat. According to the petitioners, respondent-1 has violated the mandatory requirements of Sec 5(1), (2), (4) and (5) of the Act since allotment of seats was made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner inasmuch as more number of seats were allotted to some of the constituencies disproportionately and so also in the matter of allotment of seats reserved for SC/ST without being commensurate with the population. As an example, the case of Roudakunda is stated by the petitioners and, according to them, it consists of population of 3013, but it has been divided into 5 territorial constituencies But respondent-1 has allotted & seats out of which 6 are general, one seat for women and another seat for persons belonging to SC/ST, whereas in Mukkunda village with population of 1704 with 2 territorial constituencies the seats allotted are 4 out of which 3 are general and erne seat is for women and other examples are also quoted in this regard. Hence, the petitioners are aggrieved by the de limitation done by respondent-1.