Smt Latha Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

1/94 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 6th day of January, 2017 Before THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.22740-762/2016 (LB-RES) Between:

1. Smt. Latha W/o Dilip Kumar Aged about 36 years Hagre, Belur Taluk Hassan District.

2. 3.

4.

5. Smt. Lathamanjeshwary N.S. W/o Devaprasad Aged about 41 years No.179, 1st Cross, Gurapagowda Road Belur, Hassan District. Smt. B.I. Rathamma W/o Isamygowda B.P. Aged about 72 years Doddasalavara Anugatta Arehalli Belur Taluk, Hassan District. Smt. Ujmarijvi W/o H.S. Sudharshan Aged about 49 years Hadya Estate, Hettur, Yaslur Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. Sri. Supradiptha Yajaman S/o H.B. Yajaman Aged about 37 years Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 6.

7. 8.

9. 2/94 Bhanasiri Estate, Malali, Kasaba Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. Smt. C.T. Chanchalakumari W/o H.K. Kumaraswamy Aged about 55 years Haliyuru, Magge, K. Hoskotte (H) Alur Taluk, Hassan District. Smt. V. Smitha W/o Punith Aged abotu 28 years Lingarsnhalli, Kudrugundi Dudda (h), Hassan District. Smt. M.D. Sudha W/o S. Dyavegowda Aged about 53 years Mosalehosahalli, Shanthigrama Hassan District. Smt. M.S. Pushpa W/o Darshan (Babu) Aged about 35 years Behind Helipad 5th Cross, 73/3, Udayagiri Hassan, Hassan Distirct.

10. Smt. Jayammarangashetty W/o Rangashetty Aged about 53 years Goruru, Kattaya Hassan, Hassan District.

11. Sri. Swarup H.P. S/o H.S. Prakash Aged about 32 years 2nd Main, 187/2, 3rd Cross Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 3/94 Hemavathinagar, Hassan Hassan District.

12. Smt. Sharadamma W/o Shivanna Aged about 50 years Chikkahonenahalli, behind Christ School, Vidyanagar Near Ring Road, Hassan Hassan District.

13. Sri. Hanumegowda S/o Late Patel Chikkegowda Aged about 55 years Gopanahalli, Hergu, Dudda Hassan Taluk, Hassan District.

14. Smt. Leeladharmashekar N.C. W/o Dharmashekar Aged about 33 years Gijihalli, Murundi Jenukal farm, Arsikere Taluk Hassan District.

15. Smt. Vatsala W/o Shekarappa Aged about 47 years Nagavedi, Kanakatte Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District.

16. Sri. B.S. Ashok S/o Somashekar Aged about 41 years Banavara, Arasikere Taluk Hassan District.

17. Smt. Yashodhamma W/o H.R. Krishnegowda Aged about 45 years Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 4/94 Hirehalli koppalu Kasaba, Holenarasipura Taluk Hassan District.

18. Smt. Bhavanirevanna W/o H.D. Revanna Padavalhippe, Kasaba (H) Holenarasipura Taluk Hassan District.

19. Sri. C.N. Puttaswamygowda S/o Nanjappa Aged 52 years A. Cholenahally Adaguru Post, Kasaba Channarayapatna Taluk Hassan District.

20. Sri. C. Manjegowda S/o Late Chikkegowda Aged about 47 years Naganhalli, Hosahalli Hirisave Channarayapattana Taluk Hassan District.

21. Smt. K.N. Mamatharamesh W/o K.R. Ramesh Aged about 43 years Kanaka Nilaya, Mysore Road Kebbalu, Shravanbelagola Channarayapattna Taluk Hassan District.

22. Sri. H.P. Srinivas S/o H.S. Puttaswamygowda Aged about 40 years Chikkabomenahalli, Handrangi Konannur, Arakalgudu Taluk Hassan District. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 5/94 23. Sri. Lokesh S/o Erayya Aged about 38 years Hospura, Doddakanagal Kasaba, Alur Taluk Hassan District. ... Petitioners (By Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Counsel for Mr. Varun J.

Patil, Advocate) And:

1. State of Karnataka Department of Panchayat Raj And Rural Development By its Secretary M.S. Building, Bangalore – 560001. The State Election Commission State Election Commission No.8, 1st Floor, KSCMF Building Annex Cunningham Road Bangalore - 560052 Represented by its The Regional Commissioner Gulburga. The Regional Commissioner Mysore. The Regional Commissioner Bangalore. The Regional Commissioner Belgaum. The Zilla Panchayat Bagalkot District Bagalkot 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 8.

9. 6/94 Represented by its CEO. The Zilla Panchayat Bangalore Urban District Bangalore Represented by its CEO. The Zilla Panchayat Bangalore Rural District Bangalore Represented by its CEO.

10. The Zilla Panchayat Belgaum District Belgaum Represented by its CEO.

11. The Zilla Panchayat Bellary District Represented by its CEO.

12. The Zilla Panchayat Bidar District, Bidar Represented by its CEO.

13. The Zilla Panchayat Bijapur District, Bijapur Represented by its CEO.

14. The Zilla Panchayat Chamrajnagar District Chamrajnagar Represented by its CEO.

15. The Zilla Panchayat Chickbalapur District Chickbalapur Represented by its CEO. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 7/94 16. The Zilla Panchayat Chickmagalur District Chickmaglur Represented by its CEO.

17. The Zilla Panchayat Chitradurga District Chitradurga Represented by its CEO.

18. The Zilla Panchayath Dakshina Kannada D.K. District Represented by its CEO.

19. The Zilla Panchayath Davangere District Davangere Represented by its CEO.

20. The Zilla Panchayath Dharwad District Dharwad Represented by its CEO.

21. The Zilla Panchayat Gadag District Represented by its CEO.

22. The Zilla Panchayat Gulburga District Represented by its CEO.

23. The Zilla Panchayat Hassan District Hassan Represented by its CEO.

24. The Zilla Panchayat Haveri District Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 8/94 Haveri Represented by its CEO.

25. The Zilla Panchayat Kodagu District Madikeri Represented by its CEO.

26. The Zilla Panchayat Kolar District, Kolar Represented by its CEO.

27. The Zilla Panchayat Koppal District Koppal Represented by its CEO.

28. The Zilla Panchayat Mandya Represented by its CEO.

29. The Zilla Panchayat Mysore Represented by its CEO.

30. The Zilla Panchayat Raichur Represented by its CEO.

31. The Zilla Panchayat Ramanagara Represented by its CEO.

32. The Zilla Panchayat Shimoga Represented by its CEO.

33. The Zilla Panchayat Tumkur District Tumkur Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 9/94 Represented by its CEO.

34. The Zilla Panchayat Uttar Kannada District Karwar Represented by its CEO.

35. The Zilla Panchayat Udupi District Udupi Represented by its CEO.

36. The Zilla Panchayat Yadgir District Yadgir Represented by its CEO.

37. Sri. Dinakar Babu President (Udupi) Aged major R/at. Chinnu Mane, No.11-182 Near SDM Hospital Kattegudde Kuthpadi Udupi – 574118.

38. Smt. Sheela K. Shetty Vice-President (Udupi) W/o Kutti K. Shetty Aged major R/at. Kushi, Yarmalu Udupi – 574119.

39. Smt. Meenakshi Shantigoud President (Dakshina Kannada) W/o Babu Aged major R/at. Alake Mane Shanthigod Village, Puttur D.K. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 40. Smt. Kasturi Panj 10/94 Vice-President (Dakshina Kannada) W/o Hemachandra Aged major R/at. 1-73(E) Mathrushree Krupa 10th Tukuru Village Mangalore Taluk, D.K.

41. Sri. B.A. Harish President (Kodagu) S/o Late B.A. Annappa Aged major R/at. Makkandur Village Madikere Taluk, Kodagu.

42. Smt. Lokeshwari Vice-President (Kodagu) S/o M.P. Gopal Aged major R/at Takeri Village Somavarapete Taluk Kodagu.

43. Sri. M.J.

Ramachandra President (Chamaraja Nagar) S/o Late Mahadevanayak Aged major R/at. Nanjedevanapura Village Harave Hobli Chamarajanagar Taluk & District.

44. Sri. S. Basavaraju Vice-President (Chamarajanagar) S/o Late Shankarappa Aged major R/at Gejjalanatta, Ramapur Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar.

45. Smt. Premakumari President (Mandya) W/o S. Rangappa Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 11/94 Aged major R/at. Marenahalli Kundur Post Santhebachanalli Hobli K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya Dist.

46. Smt. K.P. Gayathri Vice-President (Mandya) W/o P.S. Revanna Aged major R/at. Poovanahaali Ganjigere Post, Bukanakere Hobli K.R. Pete Taluk, Mandya Dist.

47. Smt. B.S. Chaitra Malatesh President (Chikkamagalur) Aged major R/at. Mudugodu Village Rangenalli Post, Lakkavalli Hobli Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagalur Dist.

48. Smt. Rangaswamy Shettigadde Vice-President (Chikkamagalur) S/o Nagappagowda Shettigadde Aged major R/at. Bomlapura Post, Kasaba Hobli Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur Dist.

49. Smt. B.S. Shwetha President (Hassan) W/o Devaraja Nayak Aged major R/at. D.R. Deshani Village Javagal Hobli, Arasikere Taluk Hassan District.

50. Smt. Nahima Sultan Nazir President (Mysore) W/o Nazir Ahamad Aged major Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 12/94 R/at. Haropura Village Savvepost, Kasaba Hobli H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysore District.

51. Smt. G. Natraj Vice-President (Mysore) S/o Late K.B. Gurumallappa Aged major R/at. Kaiyamballi Village Sosale Hobli, T. Narasipura Taluk Mysore District.

52. Sri. C.P. Rajesh President (Ramanagara) S/o Puttamadegowda Aged major R/at. Chakkere Village Maluru Hobli, Channapatna Taluk Ramanagara District.

53. Sri. B.N. Divya Vice-President (Ramanagara) W/o Gangadhar Aged major R/at. Chigaluru Village Sankighatta Post, Thippasandra Hobli Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara Taluk.

54. Sri. V. Prasad President (Bangalore Rural) S/o Y. Venkatappa Aged major R/at. Giddappanahalli Sulibele Post, Hoskote Taluk Bangalore Rural District.

55. Sri. P.N. Ananthakumari Vice-President (Bangalore Rural) W/o A. Chinnappa Aged major Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 13/94 R/at. Sonnenhalli Village Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District.

56. Smt. Uma M.P. Ramesh, President (Davangere) W/o. M.P. Ramesh, Aged Major, R/a.Hiremath Village, Honnali Taluk, Davangere Dist.

57. Sri.D. Siddappa, Vice President (Davangere), S/o. Savitramma, Aged Major, R/a Yravalli village, Touduru Post, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davangere.

58. Smt. Sowbhagya H.B. President (Chitradurga) W/o. S.K. Basavarajan, Aged Major, R/a. Nimmane, Bank Colony, Turuvanuru Road, Chitradurga Taluk & Dist.

59. Smt. N.P. Susheelamma, Vice President (Chitradurga) W/o. Pennubali Swamy, Aged Major, R/a Rampura village and Post Molakalumuru Taluk, Chitradurga. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 14/94 60. Smt. Jyothi S. Kumar, President (Shimoga) W/o. Kumar, Aged Major, R/a. Kenchenalli village, Mavinakere Post, Bhadravati Taluk, Shimoga Dist.

61. Smt. Vedha Vijay Kumar, Vice President (Shimoga), Aged Major, R/a. Santhekaduru village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk & Dist.

62. Sri.P.N. Keshavareddy, President (Chikkaballapura) S/o. Chikkanarayana Reddy, Aged Major, R/a.Peresandra Village, Mandikallu Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk & Dist.

63. Smt. P. Nirmala, Vice President (Chikkaballapura), W/o. M.G. Muniraju, Aged Major, R/a. Malluru Village, Shidlagahatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura Dist.

64. Sri. Muniraju, President (Bangalore Urban) Aged Major, R/a.Doddathimmasandra Village, Sarjapur Post, Anekal Taluk, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 15/94 Bangalore Dist.562125.

65. Smt. Parvathi Chandrappa, Vice President (Bangalore Urban) Aged Major, R/a. Subbarayanapalya, Chikkelluru Dhakale, Ramohalli Post, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Dist.560 074.

66. Smt. Latha, President (Tumkur), W/o. Ravikumar, Aged Major, R/a. Changavara, Sira Taluk, Tumkur Dist.

67. Smt. Sharadha, Vice President (Tumkur), W/o. Narashimamurthy, Aged Major, R/a. Turuchanakatte, Karadagere Kavalu, Tumkur Dist.

68. Smt. Geethamma, President (Kolar), W/o. G. Anand Reddy, Aged Major, R/a.Shinigehalli village, G. Marandahalli Post, Mulabagalur Taluk, Kolar. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 16/94 69. Smt. K. Yashoda Vice President (Kolar) W/o. D.V. Krishnamurthy, Aged Major, R/a. Duduvanahalli, Malur Taluk, Kolar.

70. Smt. Adamani Veeralakshmi, President (Raichur), W/o. Parameshwarappa, Aged Major, R/a. Dadesugur Village, Sindhaur Taluk, Raichur.

71. Smt. Geetha Kariyappa, Vice President (Raichur), Aged Major, R/a.Gejallaghatta Village, Lingasuguru Taluk, Raichur.

72. Smt. C. Bharathi, President (Bellary), W/o. V. Thimareddy, Aged Major, R/a. Purugai Galli, Kattebasayya Gallim Bandanhatti Village, Bellary Dist.

73. Smt. P. Deena, Vice President (Bellary), W/o. K.B. Manjunath, Aged Major, R/a. Chouddapura Village, Kudligi Taluk, Bellary Dist. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 17/94 74. Sri. Nagarahalli Shekarappa, President (Koppal), S/o. Basavareddappa, Aged Major, R/a Muddaballi Village, Koppal Taluk and Dist.

75. Sri. Lakshammamma Siddapa, Vice President (Koppal), Aged Major, R/a. Nirlooti, Gangavati Taluk, Koppal Dist.

76. Smt. Bharathabai Mallinath, President (Bidhar), Aged Major, R/a.Madaragi Village, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar Dist.

77. Sri. Prakashrao Kashinathrao Patil, Vice President (Bidhar), Aged Major, R/a. Ghat Bhorala Village, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar Dist.

78. Sri. Basareddy, President (Yadgir), Aged Major, R/a.Anapura village, Yadgiri Taluk and Dist.

79. Smt. Chandrakala Shankargouda, Vice President (Yadgir), Aged Major, R/a.Hosamani, Yalagi village, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 18/94 Yadgiri Dist.

80. Smt. Malaji Suvarna, President (Kalburgi), Aged Major, R/a.Hanmanthary, Belamagi Village, Aland Taluk, Kalaburgi Dist.

81. Smt. Shobha Siddu Sirsgi, Vice President (Kalburgi), Aged Major,R/a. Gobbur Village, Abzalpur Taluk, Kalaburgi Dist.

82. Smt. Jayshree Gurudas Mageri, President (Uttara Kannada), Aged Major, R/a.Kamadenu, Belni Village, Mavinakurve Post, Uttara Kannada Dist.

83. Sri. Renake Santhosh Shankar, Vice President (Uttara Kannada) Aged Major, R/a.Teragaon village, Haliyal Taluk, Uttara Kannada Dist.

84. Smt. Chaitra Gurupadappa Sirur, President (Dharwad), Aged Major, R/a.Siruguppa, Dharwad Dist.

85. Sri. Shivanand Basappa Karigar, Vice President (Dharwad), Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 19/94 Aged Major, R/a. Byahatti Village, Dharwad Dist.

86. Sri. Kuradagi Vasappa Kuberappa, President (Gadag), Aged Major, R/a.Soratura Village, Gadag.

87. Sri. Angadi Roopa Manjunath, Vice President (Gadag), Aged Major, R/a. Abbigeri Village, Rona Taluk, Gadag.

88. Sri. Kashappanavar Veena Vijayannad, President (Bagalakote) Aged Major, R/a.Havaragi Post, Hunagund Taluk, Bagalkot.

89. Sri. Kumar Mutthappa Hanumanppa Vice President (Bagalakote) Aged Major, R/a. Ingalagi Post, Bagalkot.

90. Smt. Meti Neelamma, President (Vijaypura), Aged Major, R/A. Amaragola village, Muddebihal Taluk, Vijaypur. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 91. Sri. Prabhugouda Channanna Desai, 20/94 Vice President (Vijaypura) Aged Major, R/A Madikeshwara Village, Muddebhihal Taluk, Vijaypur.

92. Smt. Asha Prashanth Iyole President (Belagavi) Aged Major, R/a. Tanvashi Village, Athani Taluk, Belagavi.

93. Sri. Arun Anu Katambale, Vice President (Belagavi), Aged Major, R/a. Kacheri Galli, Kadoli Village, Belagavi Taluk and Dist.

94. Sri. Kotreshappa Baseganni, President (Haveri), Aged Major, R/a.Agadi Village, Haveri Taluk & Dist.

95. Smt. Mumtajabi Moulasab Tadasa, Vice President (Haveri), Aged Major, R/a. Kunnuru Village, Haveri. .. Respondents (Mr. A.G. Shivanna, Addl. Advocate General For Mr. V. Sreenidhi, AGA for R1, R3 to R6; Mr.K.N. Phanindra, Advocate for R2; Mr. B.J.

Somayaji, Advocate for R15, R30, R31, R46, R70 & R71; Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 21/94 Mr. Anil Lakshminarayanan, Advocate for R8; M/s. Anil Associates for R11; Mr. P. Nataraju, Advocate for R43; Mr. N. Byregowda, Advocate for R49; Mr.H.C. Sundaresh, Advocate for R64 & R67; Mr.R. Sharath Chandra, Advocate for R32, R36, R60 & R61; Mr. D.C. Deepak, Advocate for R45; Mr. M. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for R26, R68 & R69 Ms.Rathna N Shivayogimath, Advocate for R13 & R90; Mr. A. Nagarajappa, Advocate for R23. ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure D dated 15/04/2016 issued by R-1, quash the order dated 16/04/2016 issued by R-4 vide Annexure E and strike down Rule 2[b].[c].[d]. of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Zilla Panchyat Reservation for the post of President and Vice President]. Rules as amended in the year 2000 as illegal and arbitrary. These Writ Petitions having been reserved for orders on 06/12/2016, coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, Dr Vineet Kothari, J made the following:

JUDGMENT

1 When politics has become a means for ruling rather than serving the citizens, the caste based reservations provided for Panchayat elections takes this Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 22/94 unholy desire, many levels down, throwing up the dust in the form of spree of litigation before constitutional courts, more often than not, at all possible stages and for variety of shades of reasons for filing petitions.

2. This election battle has been drawn by Smt. Latha and 22 others, the elected members of Hassan Zilla Panchayat belonging to Janata Dal (S) Political party and without claiming any individual relief for themselves in these writ petitions and several other connected cases, which are on the board of the Court are pitched against the State Government and its authorities and all the 30 Zilla Panchayats of the State and there are 95 Respondents in Writ Petition Nos.22740-762/2016, the lead case, questioning the validity of the Notification dated 15/04/2016 issued by the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department of the State, notifying the reservations for the posts of Presidents and Vice Presidents of Zilla Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 23/94 Panchayats formed during March 2016 for 30 Zilla Panchayats, after a draft Notification with these reservations were notified in the Notification Annexure B dated 05/04/2016 and various persons including the present petitioners filed their objections vide Annexure C dated 13/04/2016 to the Principal Secretary of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.

3. The facts are illustratively taken from Writ Petition Nos.29740-762/2016(LB-RES) Smt. Latha and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, in which mainly the challenge has been laid to the reservation for ‘Scheduled Tribe (Woman)’ for President’s post and ‘General’ for Vice President’s post under the impugned Notification.

4. The challenge is that the relevant Rules namely Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 24/94 Panchayat) Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time upto 2016, framed for affixing such reservation for various Zilla Panchayats have been breached by the State with impunity and the Judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court have not been followed by the State and such reservations have been fixed to suit the political goals of the ruling party of the State, namely Congress (I).

5. For Hassan Zilla Panchayat, the allegation of the petitioners is, that even though most of the elected members of the said Zilla Panchayat belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the post of President was supposed to have been reserved for Scheduled Caste category as per the rotation rule or criteria of population ratio prescribed in the Rules, but that was arbitrarily changed to Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category. The relevant Rules 3 to 5 of 2005 Rules are quoted below:- Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 25/94 3. Reservation of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.- (1) Reservation of offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State for different categories in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 177 shall be specified in the table below:- TABLE Sl.No Category Adhyaksha Upadhyaksha Total Women Total Women Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Backward Classes: (a) Category – A (b) Category – B Unreserved Total 6 3 5 1 15 30 3 2 2 1 7 15 6 3 5 1 15 30 3 2 2 1 7 15 4. Rotation of Offices.- (a) The offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for Scheduled Tribes shall be allotted to the Zilla Panchayats having the highest percentage of population belonging to the Scheduled Tribes with 1 2 3 4 Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 26/94 reference to the total population of the district. The same procedure shall be followed for allotting Zilla Panchayats for the same number of Offices of Upadhyaksha for members belonging to Scheduled Tribes but excluding the Zilla Panchayats in which the offices of Adhyaksha have been already allotted to them. (b) The offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State shall be allotted for members belonging to the Scheduled Castes in the same manner as specified in Clause (a) above: Provided that both the Offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in any Zilla Panchayat shall not be allotted in favour of the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only: And, where the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat was Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 27/94 reserved for Scheduled Castes in the immediately preceding term, the said office shall not be reserved for Scheduled Tribes for the succeeding term and if the said office has been reserved for Scheduled Tribes, the same shall not be reserved for Scheduled Castes. (c) The office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats reserved for Backward Classes and those of Unreserved Category shall be allotted taking into consideration such factors as may deem fit. (d) The office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat reserved for Women in each category referred to in Rule (3) shall be allotted taking into consideration such factors as may deem fit. Provided that both the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of any Zilla Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 28/94 Panchayat, (as far as possible), shall not be reserved for Women. (e) Subject to Rule (3), the offices of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats in the State shall be filled from term to term in accordance with turn/rotation: (Provided, that the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for particular category shall not be allotted to the same category in the succeeding term. However, there is no restriction for the Unreserved category to continue the offices. Provided further that the offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha reserved for women, as far as possible, shall not be allotted for Women, in the succeeding term.) 5. Repeal:- The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 29/94 Panchayat)Rules, 1995 notified before, is hereby repealed.

6. The present writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition Nos.22740-762/2016 was filed in this Court on 17/04/2016, just two days after the final notification, affixing these reservations was published and on 15/04/2016 and a co-ordinate bench of this Court, while issuing notices specifically noted that there is no direction to stall the election process and the State Government is permitted to proceed with the elections for the posts of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ of these Zilla Panchayats, however such elections will remain subject to the final decision of these writ petitions.

7. Before coming to the bone of contention between the petitioners and the State about the validity of the said Notification dated 15/04/2016, this Court will have to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 30/94 the Respondent - State with great vehemence that these writ petitions are not even maintainable and in view of the constitutional mandate and bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, inserted by 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in part IX of the Constitution of India, no interference can be made by this Court in the election process, even for the posts of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ of the Zilla Panchayats and the State also relied upon several case laws from the Apex Court as well as this Court in which similar challenges on earlier occasions have also been turned down and rejected by this Court on the anvil of the said constitutional bar of jurisdiction.

8. Chapter 9 of the Constitution of India inserted by 73rd amendment Act of 1992 with effect from 24/04/1993 comprising of Articles 243 to 243-O are relevant for this case while Chapter 9-A comprising of Article 243-B to Article 243-ZG inserted by the said Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 31/94 73rd amendment deal with the Municipalities and Chapter 9 B comprising of Article 243-ZH to Article 243-ZT deal with the Co-operative societies.

9. It is opportune here to reproduce Article 243-O & Article 243-D of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, hereunder: Art.243-O : Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any Court; Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 32/94 (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” Article 243-D of the Constitution of India which provides for reservations in Panchayat elections, is also quoted below for ready reference. 243D. Reservation of seats. (1) Seats shall be reserved for – (a) the Scheduled Castes; and (b) the Scheduled Tribes, in every Panchayat and the number of seats so reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in that Panchayat as the population of the Scheduled Castes in that Panchayat Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 33/94 area or of the Scheduled Tribes in that Panchayat area bears to the total population of that area and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved under clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. (4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled Cates, the Scheduled Tribes and women in such manner Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 34/94 as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide; Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the total population of the State: Provided further that not less than one- third of the total number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each level shall be reserved for women: Provided also that the number of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation to different Panchayats at each level. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 35/94 (5) The reservation of seats under clauses (1) and (2) and the reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation for women) under clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period specified in article 334. (6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State from making any provision for reservation of seats in any Panchayat or offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at any level in favour of backward class of citizens. Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 19. Grounds for declaring election to be void. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the (the Designated Court) is of opinion, - (a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 36/94 (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected, - (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 37/94 (the Designated Court) shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of (the Designated Court), any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but (the Designated Court) is satisfied, - (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the order and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 38/94 Then (the Designated Court) may decide that the election of the returned candidate in not void.

10. The learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. A.G. Shivanna, representing the Respondent - State contended before the Court that the allocation of category-wise reservations to various Zilla Panchayats for the said posts of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ under the impugned Notification dated 15/04/2016 has been done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the relevant Rules framed for providing such reservation as contained in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservations of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat) Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time and he vehemently denied any mala fide political reasons for arbitrarily fixing such reservations for various Zilla Panchayats as contended by learned counsel for the Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 39/94 petitioners and he submitted that the rotation of such reservation cannot be followed in a fixed particular order with mathematical precision and the word 'rotation' would have to be interpreted as assignment of different reserved categories in the different Zilla Panchayats.

11. He further submitted that any interference by way of quashing any reservation for any particular Zilla Panchayat by this Court is bound to have a nuclear ripple effect and is bound to disturb all other reservations in all the 30 Zilla Panchayats in the State and the entire meticulous exercise undertaken by the State in affixing these reservations while keeping in mind the population ratio of various classes like General, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward and Woman categories, the entire exercise is bound to be disturbed and dislocated, if any such interference is made and since no particular mala fide or arbitrary Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 40/94 exercise with relevant evidence has been established by the petitioners merely on the basis of some vague averments and contentions of political reasons alleged in these writ petitions, such exercise of the State in assigning the reservations of particular classes in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules cannot be set at naught at the instance of the petitioners in view of the constitutional bar under Article 243-O of jurisdiction or even other wise.

12. He submitted that for Hassan Zilla Panchayat, the reservation assigned for the post of Scheduled Tribe (Woman) was so made because the said caste did not have a reservation benefit in the said Zilla Panchayat for quite some period in the past and therefore it was considered fit to assign the said reservation for the said category of Scheduled Tribe (Woman). Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 41/94 13. The learned Additional Advocate General relied upon several case laws in support of his submission, a brief discussion of which shall be made herein-after.

14. These contentions of the State were met and opposed with equal vehemence by Mr. Jayakuar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and he submitted that the State cannot be allowed to break the Rules and the prescription of reservation, which is the constitutional mandate itself, with an impunity and be not held accountable for it. He submitted that the bar of jurisdiction under Article 243- O of the Constitution of India does not apply in the present case, because these writ petitions were filed even prior to commencement of the election proceedings and before holding the meeting for election of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ of Hassan Zilla Panchayat. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 42/94 15. Relying upon several case laws, the learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil also submitted that the Rules in the present case have been thrown to winds for petty political gain by the ruling party of Congress (I), while fixing these reservations which have even gone contrary to the recommendations and file notings made before issuance of the draft Notification on 05/04/2016 and the final Notification on 15/04/2016 and a copy of these draft notings which were supplied to the applicant under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 would clearly show that for Hassan Zilla Panchayat, the recommendation was for giving reservation for the post of ‘President’ to Scheduled Caste or General in the present 13th round, since the reservation for Scheduled Caste (Woman) had been made for Hassan during 4th and 9th rounds on earlier occasions, but the same was finally, for reasons stated above, namely, that since only one Scheduled Tribe (Woman) candidate Smt. Swetha Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 43/94 had won the elections as a Member belonging to ruling Congress (I) party, if the post of Adhyaksha was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category, there would not be any other candidate from the majority of members belonging to Janatha Dal (S) party of Scheduled Caste category and despite being in minority in over all members strength, the President of Ruling Congress (I) party of Scheduled Tribe (Woman) can be elected as such effortlessly, that is why the State surreptitiously notified the said post of ‘President’ for Hassan Zilla Panchayat for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category.

16. Another ground of attack raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil was that the population ratio of the particular community qua the total population of the State for that community was the main basis prescribed for affixing such reservation of these posts and while for Hassan, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 44/94 the population of Scheduled Tribe as per 2011 official Census was only 28,848 at 0.08% of the total population in the State of Scheduled Tribe community and therefore on the basis of the population, the rank of the Hassan for such reservation to Scheduled Tribe category was at 21st place, yet out of turn, the said post of ‘President’ was reserved for Scheduled Tribe(Woman) category for Hassan.

17. Mr. Pati1 also urged that there were at least 7 other Zilla Panchayats which according to Scheduled Tribe population ranked above Hassan namely, Chikkaballapur, Dharwad, Gadag, Bengaluru (Rural), Chickmagalur, Bengaluru and Vijayapura, but, arbitrarily the State fixed reservation for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) category for Hassan and therefore there is no other justifiable reason except to infer mala fide political gain, which the ruling party could have achieved by fixing such reservation in complete breach Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 of the relevant rules and judgments of the constitutional 45/94 courts.

18. On a careful analysis of the rival contentions and the relevant case laws relied upon by both the sides and a brief over view of the facts brought on record, this Court has arrived at a considered conclusion that these writ petitions cannot be entertained and are not maintainable and deserve dismissal at the threshold on the basis of preliminary objection of bar of jurisdiction under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, for the following reasons:

19. The first and foremost reason is the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The validity of any law relating to de-limitation of constituencies or the allotment of seat to such constituencies cannot be examined by Courts in view of Clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 46/94 India. This Court does not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioners that the words "allotment of seats to such constituencies" would apply only to the allocation of seats or number of wards or posts of members for a particular Gram Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayaths. The words “allotment of seats" to particular Zilla panchayat even for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ would fall within the ambit and scope of clause (a) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The allotment of reservation to a particular seat of ‘President’ or ‘Vice President’ in a particular constituency or Zilla Panchayat cannot be excluded from the coverage of clause (a) so as to allow the judicial scrutiny of the same by the Courts by- passing the said bar of jurisdiction.

20. The purpose is simple and obvious, that is to maintain the sanctity, continuity and undisturbed Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 47/94 process of election on the basis of which the democratic process can sustain and carried out. That is why the only remedy provided and allowed by the Constitution of India was by way of Election Petition before the competent Authority or Tribunal, after the elections have been concluded.

21. Clause (b) of Article 243-O clarifies this, when it stipulates " no election to any panchayat shall be called in question except in election petition..."

, the intention of constitutional bar is very clear, i.e. to provide an insulated and free from Court interference, election process. Any interference by the Courts of law at the beginning or during the process of election is bound to defeat the said avowed purpose of the constitutional mandate and it is wrong to say that merely because the writ petitions calling upon the Court to make a judicial scrutiny of such Notifications issued for the purposes of election for any post in Panchayat Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 48/94 whether for ‘Member’ or for ‘President’ or ‘Vice- President’ is filed before the actual commencement of election process, by issuance of the Calendar of Events or fixing the date for filing nominations, holding of meetings for election, etc., can be so interfered is a wrong contention on the face of it.

22. The writ petitions on merits cannot obviously be decided in a matter of few days after having the stand of the Respondent - State in such cases and if commencement of election process itself was to be withheld or stayed to serve the effective purpose of such juridical scrutiny, that would be nothing but interference with the election process itself which is excluded by the constitutional bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India quoted above.

23. The only remedy therefore available to any aggrieved person is to file a properly instituted Election Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 49/94 Petition in such cases. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the election Tribunal could not have granted the relief as prayed for in the present writ petitions namely to quash the reservation of particular categories for particular Zilla Panchayat as it is bound to affect such reservations in all the Zilla Panchayats itself, destroys the argument of the petitioners. The aggrieved person can approach the election Tribunal only for the individual relief and not for sweeping reliefs for setting right the entire gamut of such reservations under the Rules. It is not necessary to grant all the relief which a petitioner has asked or prayed for.

24. The wider judicial scrutiny available under Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked, merely because the election Tribunal cannot exceed its jurisdiction to go beyond a particular election for a particular Panchayat. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 50/94 25. The impracticability and virtual impossibility of examining the fixation of reservations for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice-President’ of all the Zilla Panchayats is another big reason, which prevents this Court from exercising such a jurisdiction at the call of the petitioners for all such reservations in all the 30 Zilla Panchayats of the State. It is not beyond the pale of doubt that to apply the Rule of Rotation on the basis of Population Ratio as is prescribed in the Rules applicable for this purpose would require a mathematical tabulation of Population ratios of various categories and exercise of applying the principles of rotation with mathematical precision in a straight-jacket manner, if one were to undertake a hair-splitting exercise in writ jurisdiction as prayed for. This Court is simply not equipped to undertake any such exercise, even if one were to hypothetically assume, while it is not available to do so, that the constitutional bar does not apply in this case. As it is, the number of days taken Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 51/94 for arguing this case by both the sides to explain the nitty-gritty and mathematics of the facts and figures qua the rotation of the reservation prima facie satisfies the Court that it is a mind-boggling exercise and it cannot be expected from the Courts to sit like statisticians or mathematicians to fix the reservations on the basis of the principles as contented by the petitioners before this Court.

26. There is no reason to make any inference of mala fides and ulterior motives merely because in a particular case, it may even prima facie appear that the reservation by rotation was altered by the State and in the background it may appear that it would sub-serve the cause of a political gain for the ruling party. Even if it were to be so, assuming while denying, the only remedy available to the petitioners is to file appropriate Election Petition before the competent election Tribunal and not otherwise. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 52/94 27. The superior and pervasive impact of constitutional bar cannot be allowed to be breached under the guise of wide judicial discretion and jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such temptation to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, should take a backseat to maintain the higher constitutional objectives of keeping the election process insulated and free from court interference, as contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.

28. The fact that despite judgments on earlier occasions by this Court to the State Government to keep sufficient time-gap between the issuance of draft Notifications fixing such reservations and final Notifications, allowing the aggrieved persons to raise objections and considering the same fairly and objectively before issuing Final Notification for fixing Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 53/94 such reservations though ought to have been followed and which prima facie in the present case also appears to have not been followed by the State Government, but that is not sufficient and strong enough a reason to upset the entire election process for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice-President’ of all the Zilla Panchayats and it is only for the State itself which is also equally bound by the judgments of the Court to fairly and genuinely comply with those directions in true letter and spirit.

29. One would have expected in such cases for fixing the category-wise reservations for the post of ‘President’. and ‘Vice-President’ of Panchayats at the same time, when the elections for Members itself is initially announced, so that the objections, if any, for that could be well raised in time and considered by the competent authorities in the State Government and it would have been much better if the objections are Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 54/94 decided by a speaking and reasoned quasi-judicial order by such competent authorities in a transparent manner before the final Notifications fixing the reservations are issued and still leaving a reasonable time for the aggrieved persons to seek judicial scrutiny of such quasi-judicial orders, deciding the objections well ahead of the commencement of the election process itself. But at the fag-end of such time period or just before the commencement of the election process or after the commencement of the election process, no such judicial scrutiny can be undertaken and in the considered opinion of this Court, the bar under Article 243-0 would get attracted in such cases.

30. There is an imminent need of passing a quasi-judicial order complying with the principles of natural justice, deciding the objections against the reservations proposed to be made under 2005 Rules as amended from time to time much ahead of holding Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 55/94 these elections for the post of President & Vice president of Panchayats, which orders alone can be made subject to judicial scrutiny much prior to the issuance of the final Notification, fixing seat reservations, in exercise of subordinate legislative exercise, which is beyond the judicial scrutiny by virtue of bar under Art.243-O of the Constitution of India. This exercise should be undertaken at the time of initiating the steps for holding the elections for the membership of Panchayats themselves. The true democratic process with transparency is the tenet of free & fair elections, which is the constitutional ethos of our Republic.

31. In the present case, no such order of the Principal Secretary to whom such objections were addressed by the petitioners has been produced before this Court, so as to examine the correctness of the reasons assigned by the State Government for not fixing the reservations for these posts strictly in accordance Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 56/94 with the Rules on the basis of the category-wise population figures and previous reservations on a rotation basis as explained from time to time by this Court, that is, once a seat has been fixed for a particular category, that rotation has to be carried for that category for all the Zilla Panchayats in a cyclical manner to complete the circle before such reservation again comes back to that particular Zilla Panchayat.

32. However, it is again clarified that except examining the validity of such a quasi-judicial order passed by the competent Authority of the State Government deciding such objections, no interference can be made in the election process under the Act of 1993 by Courts in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India.

33. Therefore, it is for the State Government to provide sufficient time-gap between notifying the draft Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 57/94 reservations for these posts and receiving objections, if any, and passing such quasi-judicial orders as stated above and then issue the final Notification for commencement of the election process for these posts, under the Act of 1993.

34. The decision of the objections at a point of time just near the commencement of election process for these posts also in effect renders such judicial scrutiny impractical and impossible and attracts the constitutional bar to such judicial scrutiny. The concerned Rules are therefore required to be amended to provide for such time-frame, leaving sufficient time period of, say at least six months, for such judicial scrutiny of the quasi-judicial orders deciding such objections.

35. The earlier judgments of this Court providing for six months’ period between draft Notifications and Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 58/94 final Notifications providing for such reservations, including the process of filing objections and decision thereon by the competent authorities also does not leave any sufficient time for the judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction, looking to the burden of workload on the Courts and at least a period of six months should be left between the aforesaid quasi-judicial orders and the commencement of election process for these posts, for the Courts to pronounce upon the validity of such quasi-judicial orders passed by the competent authority of the State.

36. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed upholding the Preliminary Objection of the State and they are accordingly dismissed. In view of this, facts of individual Zilla Panchayat reservations for these posts are not required to be discussed separately. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 59/94 37. A brief look into the relevant case-laws cited at bar is given below: First, the judgments relied upon by the State are being discussed :

38. In NANHOO MAL AND OTHERS Vs HIRA MAL AND OTHERS [(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 211]., the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of Municipal elections held that to fill-up a casual vacancy in the Office of the President of the Municipal Board, Soron, in the district of Etah in Uttar Pradesh, where the Respondent – Hira Mal filed a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate for holding the said election and prayed that the said elections be not held on October 1st, 1974, though the election programme had been notified in the UP Gazettee on 21-09-1974, but it was published in the Gazette of 24-09-1974, the Court finally negatived the challenge in the following words:- Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 60/94 “Thus the only way by which the election of a President can be called in question, is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The election itself can be questioned only on one of the three grounds mentioned above. The only ground in the present case on the basis of which the election of the appellant was questioned is that there was a non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 6, already referred to. Under the Act the non-compliance with any rule or order made under the Act or any provision of the Act does not ipso facto result in the election being set aside. That result can be set aside only if the election Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the result of the election has been materially affected by such non- compliance. The jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of a President is an exclusive one conferred on the District Judge. In the circumstances there was no room for the High Court exercising its powers Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 61/94 under Article 226 in order to set aside the election. In setting aside the election the High Court plainly erred because it did not consider whether the result of the election had been materially affected by non- compliance with the rule in question. In any case that is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Judge.

39. In Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere Vs. Smt. N. Latha and others,(W.A.No.3065/2010 & 3096-97/2010), the Division Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice (as his lordships then here was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna]., of this Court similarly upheld the Preliminary Objection as raised in the present case on the anvil of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, while dealing with a case of reservation of Joladal Grama Panchayat for woman candidate belonging to BCA category by Notification dated 05-06-2010, as not justified while the Office of the Vice-President of the said Grama Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 62/94 Panchayat was to be kept open for General category candidate and the Court held as under: “Having perused the conclusion rendered in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and more particularly conclusion 4 in para 32 (extracted above). We are satisfied that W.P.Nos.18323- 325/2010 filed at the hands of the respondents before the election process had commenced hearing it would have interrupted, disturbed or delayed the progress of the election. Thus, we are of the view, that under Article 243(0) of the Constitution of India, the objection raised by the appellant herein during the course of proceedings in W.P.Nos.18323-325/2010 was fully justified. The contrary conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is accordingly liable to be set aside. The same is therefore hereby set aside…..” 40. In T.S. Krishnappa and another Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 63/94 Nos.41556-557/2012 c/w. W.P.Nos.44091/2012, 42007/2012 & 42145/2012, decided on 23/11/2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice Abdul Nazeer) in dealing with the case of reservations for the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in Taluk Panchayat of Davanagere, negatived the challenge with the following observations: “xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 13. If the State is directed to redo the reservation of rotation at this stage, it will have a cascading effect as the election to 160 local bodies out of 176 local bodies have already been over. Therefore, keeping in view the law declared by this Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, Namakkal, Salem District And Others – AIR1952SC64 this Court cannot interfere with the notifications at this stage. Petitioners have to avail the alternative remedy available to them in law for challenging the election. It should also to Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 64/94 be noted here that having regard to the various factors, it may not be possible to make reservation with mathematical precision and accuracy. As long as there are legitimate considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation allowing some flexibility in the joints is permissible. In this connection, it is beneficial to notice the observations of this Court in Smt. Rekha Parashuram Kattimani Vs. State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, RDPR Department And Others – ILR2009KAR3656 which is as under. “34. Reservation of seats to the 29 Zilla Panchayaths is not the subject matter in these petitions, but its rotation to the office of Chairpersons, being Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the 29 Zilla Panchayaths. Applying the aforesaid principle that the provision in the Constitution indicating proportionality of representation Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 65/94 as necessarily being a broad, general and logical principle and the inherit systematic deficiencies, and not intended to be expressed in mathematical precision, and not a declared basic requirement in each and every part of the territory of India, it cannot be said that rotation of the reservation too should be effected by mathematical precision. As observed supra, accommodations and adjustments having regard to political maturity, awareness and degree of political development in different parts of India, might supply the justification for deviation, to some extent, in the matter of rotation while ensuring as far as may be no repetition. The differing in criteria, and the increase in the number of Districts, supra, do not justify standards based on mathematical accuracy. So long Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 66/94 as there are legitimate considerations in the matter of rotating the reservation, some deviation, allowing some “flexibility in the joints”, in my opinion, is permissible. I say so, also, keeping in mind the fact that census of backward classes, is unavailable and hence there is neither criteria, or foundation for rotating the reservations to the Chairpersons, for the said class. The suggested criteria such as alphabetical order of the names of the different District; reckoning the population figures by excluding the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe; and drawing of lots, to provide reservation by way of rotation to Backward classes, I am afraid none pass the test of rationality of reasonableness to qualify acceptance”. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 67/94 14. As undertaken by the State, it has to set right the rotation of reservation atleast for the next term well in advance or in the alternative take steps to amend the Act and the Rules in accordance with law. Writ petitions are dismissed with liberty with liberty to challenge the elections by filing election petitions before the Competent Court. No costs.” 41. The Gram Panchayat elections of 2015 under the Notification dated 25/05/2015 came to be dealt with by another learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice R.S. Chauhan) in C. Prakash and others Vs. The State Election Commission and others) in writ Petition Nos.25693-697 & 25764- 768/2015 and connected cases, decided on 29/06/2015, in which the learned Single Judge while explaining the meaning of rotation held that it is not practically feasible to seek mathematical precision in the rotation order and therefore the rotation cannot be Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 68/94 insisted on a specified serial order. The aim of such rotation is to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended across the board to different Panchayats and if said purpose is achieved, then it cannot be said that the rotation of the categories is violated.

42. This Court respectfully agrees with these observations and in the said judgment, the learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed the writ petitions finding the petitions to be a mere clever ploy to interrupt and delay the progress of elections and therefore deserved to be dismissed. While giving a direction to the State to allow sufficient time for people to raise objections against such notified reservations for these posts, which in view of the previous decision of this Court deserves to be notified well in advance. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 69/94 43. The relevant quotes from the said judgment contained in paragraphs 36, 37 and 53, 54 and 55 are quoted below for ready reference.

36. According to the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word “rotation” means “one complete turn: the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation; return or succession in a series; the action of placing in succession in a series”. But according to the learned counsels for the petitioners the rotation must follow a particular order, i.e. SC, ST, OBC-A, OBC-B, Unreserved (Woman). According to them, this serial order cannot be violated. If it is violated, the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioners would be illegal. Harping on this argument, different counsels have tried to point out specific instances where this serial order has been ignored.

37. Although at first blush the argument sounds impressive, but a deeper examination exposes flaws in the argument. Firstly, the Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 70/94 said series of categories have been spelt out in Para 3(i) of the notification dated 25-05- 2015. The said order is to be taken into account for working out reserving posts to different categories. However, Para 3(i) cannot be read in isolation. While the posts are to be reserved in this order, but other factors equally mentioned in the notification would necessarily have to be kept in mind: i) the population of SC and ST in the Taluk, ii) their percentage to the entire population of the Taluk, iii) the descending order of the Grama Panchayat with regard to the number of members elected from a particular category, iv) the fact whether the seat of the President was reserved for the particular category in the previous election or not; v) certain combinations of the posts of President and Vice-President, which are barred by the notification; vi) the maximum cap in case of Woman; vii) the maximum cap in case of reservation as such-this would also include the reduction in number of seats to be reserved for OBC-A and OBC-B categories. Therefore, while trying to reserve the post of Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 71/94 President of a Grama Panchayat, the Deputy Commissioner must balance the above named factors. Hence, neither the repetition can be avoided, nor the non-inclusion of a particular category be ruled out. Therefore, to say the rotation must follow a particular order is to seek mathematical precision in the rotation order. Partically it is not feasible. Therefore, the word “rotation” would have to be interpreted as assignment of different reserved categories in the Grama Panchayats of a Taluk so as to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended to different Panchayats. Thus, keeping the different factors in mind, the reserved categories can be moved at random and need not be rotated in a specified order. Therefore, rotation cannot be insisted on a specified serial order. The aim of such “rotation” is to ensure that the benefit of reservation is extended across the board to the different Panchayat. If the said purpose is achieved, then it cannot be said that the rotation of categories is violated. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 72/94 53. Considering the fact that only a handful of petitions have been filed, that too, on the repetitive plea of the post of President in a particular Grama Panchayat not being reserved for a particular reserved category, considering the fact that the overall picture is being missed, considering the fact that the material facts with regard to other factors which would necessarily affect the decision are not being revealed, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions are merely a cleaver ploy to interrupt and delay the progress of the election. Hence, this court should not interfere with the election process.

54. But before ending this judgment, this Court would like to take note of a contention raised both by Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel, and by Mr. Rajagopal, the learned counsel, with regard to the timing of the notification both by the election Commission and by the Deputy Commissioners. According to both the learned counsels in the case of Smt. Rekha Parashuram kattimani (supra) this court Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 73/94 had directed the State “to ensure issue of the Notification well in advance, in the least, six months prior to the closing of the term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, so as to enable persons aggrieved to have their say in the matter”. Furthermore in the case of Channigappa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others [2000 (6) KLJ163(DB)]. a learned Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: We however direct that in future as and when Government exercises its statutory power and acts in the matter of rotation/delimitation/adjustment of seats, in terms of the rules, affected parties are to be given an opportunity to have their say with regard to their grievances in the said mater. We would further observe that the State Government would be well-advised to amend the rules providing for an opportunity to the affected general Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 74/94 public to avoid and criticism on the Government.

55. Undoubtedly in a democracy, a government runs on the faith of the people. Therefore, every action of the government has to be above suspicion. The loss of the faith of the people not only corrodes the credibility of the government, but most importantly shakes the faith of the people in the Rule of Law. Hence, it is imperative that fairness should not only be done by the government in matter of election, but should also be seen to be done by it. This Court thus hopes that the directives issued by this Court would be followed by the State Government in the future. In case the State fails to follow the directions and the advice given by this Court, it does it at its own peril. However, for the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petitions. Therefore, the petitions are, hereby, dismissed. No order as to cost. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 75/94 44. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India, through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar and others [(2000)8 Supreme Court Cases P.216]., the Hon'ble Court in an appeal by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against an interim order passed by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, during the currency of the process of election, whereby the High Court had stayed the Notification issued by the Election Commission of India containing direction as to the manner of counting votes and made its own direction on the said subject, held that the judicial review by the High Court was limited and must satisfy the dual test evolved by the Apex Court. The Court held as under: “ It is not disputed that the Commission does have power to issue such notification. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 76/94 What is alleged is that the exercise of power was mala fide as the ruling party was responsible for large-scale booth capturing and it was likely to lose the success of its candidates secured by committing an election offence if material piece of evidence was collected and preserved by holding polling- stationwise counting and such date being then made available to the election Tribunal. Such a dispute could have been raised before and decided by the High Court if the dual test was satisfied: (i) the order sought from the Court did not have the effect of retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling the counting of votes and the declaration of the results as only that much part of the election proceedings had remained to be completed at that stage, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 77/94 (ii) a clear case of mala fides on the part of Election Commission inviting intervention of the Court was made out, that being the only ground taken in the petition.

45. Even in an advanced democracy like USA, such election issues were dealt with by Chief Justice Warren in B.A. Reynolds vs. M.O. SIMS (377 US P.533) and the Chief Justice Warren held that some deviations from the equal population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in State Legislature. The relevant portion of judgment is quoted below: “We realize that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 78/94 a workable constitutional requirement. …. So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature”.

46. Now, a brief discussion of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil is made hereunder:

47. In M. Abdul Azeez Vs. The State Of Karnataka, By Its Secretary, Urban Development Department And Others (ILR2014KAR.1839) the Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 79/94 learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.G. Ramesh) explained the meaning of ‘rotation’ under Municipal Corporations Act beautifully in the following terms to mean that the word ‘rotation’ would mean something which moves in a circular order and strictly avoiding repetition of allotments to any reserved category by taking into consideration all the previous allotments made in each of the Municipalities. The learned Single Judge held that when a particular reserved category is represented in all the Municipalities of a particular kind, it would complete one cycle of rotation for that category and thereafter a fresh cycle of rotation for that category shall commence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as hereunder:

11. The meaning of the principle of rotation in the context of the above referred proviso to sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act and the proviso to sub-Section (2A) of Section 42 of the Municipalities Act needs to be stated to Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 80/94 answer the question raised in these writ petitions. It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel on both sides that there is no judgment by this Court on the interpretation of the word ‘rotation’ occurring in both the above provisos. 11.1. Both the above provisos which are similarly worded state that allotment of the offices of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons reserved in the Municipalities of the State shall be allotted to the reserved categories by rotation in the prescribed manner. Though both the provisos are quoted above, for convenience, the proviso under the Municipalities Act is extracted below: “Provided that the offices reserved under this sub-section shall be allotted by rotation in the prescribed manner to different municipal councils. Explanation. – For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 81/94 principle of rotation for the purpose of reservation of offices under this sub-section shall commence from the first ordinary election to be held after the first day of June, 1994;” Rotation means something which moves in a circular order. ‘Rotate’ means to cause to turn in a circle. The principle of rotation, in the context of the above two provisos, means that the offices reserved for each of the reserved categories requires to be allotted by rotation in a circular order among the Municipalities of a particular kind till the said category is represented in all the Municipalities of that kind and allotment to the said category cannot be repeated in any Municipality till a cycle of rotation is completed. When a particular reserved category is represented in all the Municipalities of a particular kind, it would complete one cycle of rotation for that category and thereafter, a fresh cycle rotation for that category shall commence. Every reserved category has to have an Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 82/94 independent cycle of rotation. Every such cycle shall be independent of its previous or the succeeding cycle. Before completion of one cycle of rotation for a reserved category as explained above, if allotment to that category is repeated in any Municipality, it would be violative of the principle of rotation and such an allotement is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. This is the principle of rotation intended by the Legislature under the two provisos referred to above. The object of rotation is to provide representation to each of the reserved categories to the offices of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons in all the municipalities. I may add that to complete a Cycle of rotation in respect of a particular reserved category, it may take only one circular movement or several circular movements among the municipalities of a particular kind like CMCs, TMCs etc., depending upon the total number of offices reserved for that category in the State and the number of municipalities of that kind in the State. Several circular movements may become necessary due to several other Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 83/94 reasons also. For eg., during a circular movement, when no candidate belonging to a particular reserved category is available in a municipality, then the allotment shall go to the next municipality in line in the circular order. Another example is, when a rule requires that both the offices in a Municipality shall not be allotted to the same category. There may be many such valid reasons for bypassing a Municipality and to go to the next in line available in the circular order or to go to a previous one which was bypassed earlier for any valid reason. This all depends upon the order of rotation laid down by the Rules framed in this behalf by the State Government. But under no circumstance, ‘repetition’ is permissible i.e., allotment of the office for the same reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation. Any ‘repetition’ would be contrary to the principle of rotation. However, in respect of the category of Backward classes, this principle of rotation is subject to the following Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 84/94 proviso which is incorporated in both the Municipal Acts: “Provided further that if no person falling under category “A” is available, offices reserved for that category shall also be filled by the persons falling under category “B” and vice versa”; 11.2 The following example would illustrate the principle of rotation: If the office of President in a City Municipal Council is allotted to a particular reserved category, the said office cannot be allotted for the second time to the said category in that Municipal Council before completion of a cycle of rotation for that category i.e., till the said category is allotted the office of President in all the other City Municipal Councils once.

12. An elementary test to find out as to whether the principle of rotation is violated or not, is to examine as to whether any Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 85/94 allotment to a reserved category is repeated in any Municipality before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category. If there is any allotment to any reserved category for the second time in a Municipality before completion of a cycle of rotation or before commencement of a fresh cycle of rotation for that category, it would be a clear violation of the principle of rotation.

13. The principle of rotation as explained above is not followed by the State Government while making allotments in the impugned notifications. Allotments made to several reserved categories in a large number of municipalities are ‘repetitions’. What is ‘repetition’ is already explained above. It is also not the case of the State Government that there are no ‘repetitions’ in the allotments made in the impugned notifications.

14. The Rules framed by the State Government under both the Municipal Acts do not provide for the principle of rotation as Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 86/94 explained above. This is evident by the very allotments made in the impugned notifications. The State Government is duty bound to amend the existing rules or to frame new rules to give effect to the principle of rotation which is the mandate of the Legislature.” 48. In H.C. Yateesh Kumar and others Vs. The Karnataka Election Commission and others (ILR2005KAR.3323) [Hon’ble Mr.Justice H.L. Dattu (as his lordships here then was) and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das]., the Division Bench of this Court struck down Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by rotation) Rules, 1998 as ultra vires and void and quashed the Notifications issued by the State Election Commission insofar as it related to allotment of reserved seats to different constituencies in each Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayats. Paragraphs 5 & 26 read as under Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 87/94 Para.5. The petitioners in these writ petitions are voters in different villages in the State of Karnataka and they are eligible and qualified to contest for the post of Taluk Panchayat member the Zilla Panchayat member. The petitioners in all these petitions have prayed to strike down the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation), Rules 1998 (hereinafter called the ‘Rules 1998’) as illegal, void and ultra vires to Article 243D of the Constitution read with Section 162 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It is further prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications issued by the 1st respondent State Election Commission relating to delimitation of the Constituencies and reservation of the Constituencies in Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats in the State. Para.26: The 1st Respondent State Election Commission allotted the reserved seats for Schedule Tribe and Scheduled Caste as stated above by taking into consideration Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 88/94 the population of these reserved categories in the respective Taluks and one each to every taluk in a District. Sri. Raviverma Kumar, Learned Senior Counsel contends that this distribution of Zilla Panchayat seats to every Taluk in the District and on the basis of population is contrary to Article 243-D of the Constitution and also Section 162 of the Act, 1993. By this method of allotment of seats as per sub rule (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of Rules 1998 prepetuates the reservation of certain Constituencies for certain reserved categories. Somwarpet in Kodagu District is having largest SC population and therefore in every election 2 seats will be allotted to Somwarpet constitutency. Further, this method deprives the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes category people in other Constituencies to have their representation in the Zilla Panchayat. By perpetuation of reservation in certain constituencies will deprive the other community people in the same constituency from contesting the elections. There is force in this submission of the Learned Senior Counsel and we accept the same. Therefore, Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 89/94 the allotment of seats on the basis of population and by Taluk wise is contrary to Article 243-D of the Constitution. Article 243- D of the Constitution and Section 162 of the Act 1993, specifies that the reserved seats for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste are to be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in a Panchayat. But as per sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1998, the 1st respondent State Election Commission allotted the seats Taluk wise and on the basis of population and as much the same is contrary to the requirement of Article 243-D of the Constitution and Section 162 of the Act, 1993. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar informed the Court that an appeal against this judgment is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Moreover, the Rules of 1998 are not applicable in the present case as this Court is not presently concerned with a similar controversy as was involved in that case. Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 90/94 49. In H. Shivappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2005) 4 Kar.Law Journal 328]., the learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the elections to Municipalities, held that there is a distinction between the elections to the post of Chairpersons of Municipalities and the election to the Municipalities itself in the following terms:

36. The bar is in respect of the examination of the question of elections to the Municipalities. It is to be noticed that the election to Municipalities is not the same as elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities, as indicated in Article 243-P (e) of the Constitution.

37. Even in Article 243-P(e) in fact a clear distinction has been maintained between a municipality and the Chairpersons of the municipality. Separate provisions providing for reservations have been made in Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 91/94 Article 243-T for elections to the Municipalities and for elections to the posts of Chairpersons in the Municipalities. The word ‘municipality’ does not automatically take in its fold the Chairpersons of the municipality. The bar contained in Article 243-ZG is in respect of the elections to any municipality and not elections to the Chairpersons of the Municipalities. The bar operates if it is actually so provided for and not by way of an analogy or by way of an extension, if one should understand the position on the settled principles of the interpretation.

38. It is not possible to include the elections to the posts of Chairpersons to a municipality within the meaning of the word ‘municipality’, as the provision is one which curtails the jurisdiction of the Courts, imposes fetters on the jurisdiction, until and unless the bar is express and unambiguous. The fact situation before the learned Single Judge in that matter was different from the facts involved in Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 92/94 the present case. Therefore, that judgment is of no help to the petitioners in the present case.

50. In L. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka (1988 Indian Law Reports Kar.P.2121), the Division Bench held that the only course open to a vigilant citizen is to have the illegality rectified before the election and if not done, as far as the Election Tribunal is concerned, it had no jurisdiction to go into any question relating to the legality of the electoral roll. This judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners in the present case as the issue is not pertaining to challenge to the electoral roll in the present case.

51. In Karnataka State Election Commission, Bangalore Vs. Sri.G. Sangappa in Writ Appeal Nos.4506 to 4508 of 2010 decided on 3rd December, 2010, the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 93/94 Kumar and others (supra) also dealt with the provisions of Rules of 1998 and held that the rotation in the matter of reservation contemplated under the aforesaid provisions had not been given effect through the impugned Notification dated 08/11/2010. Since the appeal against the previous Division Bench decision in the case of H.C. Yatheesh Kumar and others (supra) is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the aforesaid reasons also, this judgment is also of little help to the petitioners in the present case.

52. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the reasons assigned above, this Court is satisfied that these writ petitions cannot be entertained on merits and upon factual scrutiny of the reservations fixed category- wise in the election for the post of ‘President’ and ‘Vice- President’ for the year 2016 of Zilla Panchayats, the same cannot be quashed and no mala fides are established on the part of the State to have fixed these Date of Judgment 06-01-2017 Smt. Latha & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. W.P.Nos.22740-762/2016 94/94 reservations for any illegal purpose and the writ jurisdictions in the present case is barred by Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and the writ petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed accordingly. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed. No order SD/- JUDGE as to costs. BMV*