M VENKATARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) As far as relief Nos.1 and 3 arc concerned, they do not survive because the election itself is post-poned throughout the State on the ground that the Agriculturists constituencies are not properly framed. If there is any grievance with regard to agriculturists constituencies framed in contravention of a sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1966 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there is sufficient time for the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner. However, relief No.2 is required to be considered.

(3.) The petitioner has sought for striking down sub-sec. (2) of Sec.14 of the Act on the ground that it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioner is that no doubt sub-sec.(2) of Sec.14 of the Act authorises the Deputy Commissioner to reserve one constituency for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but it does not lay down norms for exercising such power. Therefore, there is every likelihood of arbitrary exercise of power by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that arbitrary exercise of power is writ-large in the case on hand because the Deputy Commissioner has reserved Bangalore North Constituency for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where there are not many voters belong to S.C. and S.T. The contention proceeds on the basis that only such constituency for SC and ST shall be reserved where in the majority of voters belong to SC and ST. There is no basis for this contention in as much as neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act provide that such constituency for SC and ST should be reserved wherein the majority of voters belong to SC and ST. Sec.l4(2) of the Act in clear terms provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall reserve one such constituency for SC and ST. Thus in clear terms it provides that any one of the constituencies can be reserved for SC and ST. The criteria for reservation is not that the constituency must be such in which the majority of the voters shall belong to SC and ST. It is the seat that is reserved for SC and ST. It is not the law that the voters belonging to SC and ST should be reserved to vote for SC and ST candidates only. Such a provision will be opposed to free exercise of franchise and it will strike at the very root of free exercise of franchise and will be opposed to the basic notions of democratic institutions. It would amount to segregating SC and ST voters.