ORDER
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
1. Petitioner, a practising Advocate and former Mayor of Bangalore City Corporation, has filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to:
(i) direct the respondents to implement the Dr. K. Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report submitted in March 2008 forthwith and hold elections to BBMP accordingly as per Annexure-B in the month of March, 2008.
(ii) grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant with costs.
2. According to petitioner, the Government of Karnataka by notification in Government Order No. UDD 86 ML 2006(4) Bangalore dated 02.11.2006, appointed an Expert Committee headed by Dr. K. Kasturirangan and other four members to-
(i) review the administration structures and legal frame work currently operating within Bangalore Metropolitan Region (BMR); (ii) organize the Institutional Frame Work and to recommend alternative governance having regard to the tenets of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Bill;
(iii) examine and suggest measures necessary to ensure effective governance with reference to the proposed creation of greater Bangalore Municipal Body; and
(iv) make recommendation regarding structure of the new legal frame work for governance in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region, which would cover all Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) as also other organizations such as BDA, BMRDA, BWSSB, etc.
3. The Expert Committee so constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Kasturirangan submitted its report in March 2008. As one of the salient features of the report of the Committee, it was recommended to increase the term of office of Mayor to five years with executive powers, as against one year without any executive power as in force now; and also recommended that the Mayor may be elected directly from the people. The petitioner, therefore contended that the Government having accepted the recommendation in principle, ought to have brought appropriate amendment to the provisions of the Act and to conduct elections of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike as recommended by Dr.Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report.
4. In this regard, our attention was also drawn to Section 243(W) of the Constitution of India, which reads hereunder:
Article 243W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc:
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the
Legislature of a State may, by law, endow-
(a) the Municipalities with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to-
(i) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) the performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule; (b) the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibilities conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule.
(emphasis supplied)
5.1 The Government, in response to the above writ petition, filed their objections to the effect that holding of elections to Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (for short 'B.B.M.P.') as per the existing provision of law does not amount to non- implementation of Dr. Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report.
5.2 It is submitted that several steps have been initiated by the State Government on the said report, which in fact is accepted in principle by the Government. And that, accepting recommendation in full or part has to be debated by the Sub-Committees constituted by the Cabinet as well as by the Legislature and thus implementation of Dr.Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report requires extensive legislative methods involving major role and powers with respect to reorganisation of functions, powers and responsibilities among B.B.M.P, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation with a view to provide autonomy in respect of B.B.M.P. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no action is taken based on the recommendation of Dr. Kasturirangan Expert Committee Report, is nothing but a misconception.
6. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by Sri B.V. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
7.1 It is a settled law that writ of mandamus, as sought for can be entertained, considered and granted only in case where there is a statutory duty imposed on respondents to do so. In absence of any statutory obligations on the part of respondents, no writ of mandamus will lie, particularly when the relief under the writ is discretionary in nature. The Court will enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies only if the petitioner shows that he himself has a legal right to insist on such performance. A mandamus will not be issued in absence of such statutory right claimed by the petitioner or statutory duty or obligation on the part of respondent vide Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : (2003)8 Supreme Court Cases 250.
7.2 That apart, either to accept or reject the recommendations or even if it is accepted, to implement or not, is as rightly pointed out in the objection filed by the respondents, has to undergo an extensive legislative methods by tabling the Report before the Legislature for debating. It may not be proper for this Court to entertain such a plea exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of judicial review as the subject matter covered under the Report warrants debate in the Legislature, which is purely a political issue from out point of view. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty and Ors. reported in (1986)4 Scc 632, wherein it is held as hereunder:
38. ...Our Constitution does not envisage a rigid separation of powers. For example, the power to promulgate an ordinance which, undisputedly, is a legislative power, is conferred on the executive under Article 123. Even though this is so, the respective powers of the three wings of the State are well defined with the object that each wing must function within the field earmarked for it. The object of such demarcation is to exclude the possibility of encroachment on the field earmarked for one wing by the other or others. As long as each wing of the State functions within the field carved out and shows due deference for the other two branches, there would arise no difficulty in the working of the Constitution. But the trouble arises when one wing of the State tries to encroach on the field reserved for the other. It is in the above context that special responsibility devolves upon the Judges to avoid an over-activist approach and to ensure that they do not trespass within the spheres earmarked for the other two branches of the State....
7.3.1 It is also a settled law that the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not enter into such political tenets. More so, no mandamus can be issued directing the Government to enact a law in a way even if the claim is based on such Report of a Committee appointed by the Government because these are matters for the Legislature to decide, but not for this Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No Court can issue a mandamus to the Legislature to enact a particular law in a particular manner in particular subject. Similarly, no Court can direct a subordinate Legislative body to enact or not to enact a particular provision.
7.3.2 It is apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narainder Chand v. Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh and Ors. reported in : AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2399, wherein it is held as under:
7. ...No Court can issue a mandate to a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly no Court can direct a subordinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact....
7.4 Similarly, when an enforcement of recommendations of the Committee appointed by the Government is a discretion of the Government, it may not be proper for this Court to lay its hands into such affairs, as it is left for the Government to take policy decision. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P. reported in : (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 646 held as under:
26. True it may be that when recommendations are made by a Pay Commission, evaluation of job must be held to have been made but the same by itself may not be a ground to enforce the recommendations by issuing a writ of or in the nature of mandamus although the State did not accept the same in toto and made rules to the contrary by evolving a policy decision which cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory.
7.5 Applying the above ratios and for the reasons stated above, the averments as pleaded and the relief as prayed for, in our considered opinion, are misconceived and the same are therefore rejected.
7.6 The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.