Dismissed

Anil Lobo, 43 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2016WP/12571/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed writ petitions challenging a 1995 notification that excluded income tax assessees from reserved seats for Christians and Jains in municipal elections, holding the exclusion reasonable under Article 14.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution are dismissed as they are found to be devoid of merit.

Anil Lobo, 43 Yrs Vs State of Karnataka… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶6

Writ Petitions 12571 / 2016 c/w 58110 - 58111 / 2015 (LB )

¶7

In WP 12571/2016

¶8

Between

¶9

Anil Lobo, 43 yrs S/o Alex Lobo R/a Karinje Village Near Paper Mill Moodabidri, Mangalore Tq Petitioner

¶10

(By Mr S Rajashekar, Adv.)

¶11

And

¶12

1 State of Karnataka – by its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Dr Ambedkar Veedhi

¶13

Bangalore

¶14

2 Housing & Urban Development Department (Establishment), Vidhana Soudha Dr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore By its Under Secretary to Government

¶15

3 Karnataka State Election Commission # 8, I Floor, KSCMF Building Annex.

¶16

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶17

2/9

¶18

Cunningham Road, Bangalore 52 By Chief Election Commissioner

¶19

4 Deputy Commissioner & District Election Officer, D K District Mangalore Respondents

¶20

(By Mr V Sreenidhi, AGA)

¶21

In WPs 58110-58111/2015

¶22

1 Vasantha Bernhardt, 43 yrs S/o George Bernhardt R/a # 3-206, Haleangadi Mangalore Taluk, D K District

¶23

2 Vincent D’Souza, 37 yrs S/o Mourice D’Souza R.a House # 3-25, Tenkamijar Mangalore Taluk, D K District Petitioners

¶24

(By Sri S Rajashekar, Adv.)

¶25

And

¶26

1 State of Karnataka – by its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha, Dr Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore

¶27

2 Housing & Urban Development Department (Establishment), Vidhana Soudha Dr Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore By its Under Secretary to Government

¶28

3 Karnataka State Election Commission # 8, I Floor, KSCMF Building Annex.

¶29

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶30

3/9

¶31

Cunningham Road, Bangalore 52 By Chief Election Commissioner

¶32

Respondents

¶33

(By Sri V Sreenidhi, AGA for R1-2; Sri K N Phaneendra, Adv. for R3)

¶34

Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the Note appended to the Notification dated 16.10.1995 – Annexure A, etc.

¶35

The Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Mr S Rajashekar, Adv. For Petnr.

¶38

Mr V Sreenidhi, AGA For Respdts. 1-2

¶39

Mr K N Phaneendra, Adv. for R3

¶40

1 Both these petitions are disposed of by a common order.

¶41

2 The petitioner Mr Anil Lobo who contested the elections for the

¶42

post of Councilor of the Moodabidri Municipal Council, Mangalore Taluk has assailed the validity of the notification dated 16.10.1995 particularly,

¶43

the Note appended to the said notification which gives classification of

¶44

Category A and Category B of Backward Classes for the purpose of

¶45

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶46

4/9

¶47

reservation of seats and offices of Chair Persons in the City Corporations

¶48

and Municipal Councils.

¶49

3 The petitioner being a Christian, belongs to Category B but since he

¶50

is an income tax assessee, he, as per the said Note 2, could not claim any

¶51

reservation on the basis of his caste in the said elections. The relevant

¶52

Note under Category B of the said notification dated 16.10.1995 is quoted

¶53

below for ready reference.

¶54

No person falling under Category B shall be entitled to the benefit of reservation in the seats and offices of Mayor of City of City Corporations President – Municipal Councils/City Municipal Councils/Town Panchayats

¶55

(i) He/She or either of his/her: parents/guardian/his or her spouses is a Class I or Class II Officer in the service of the Government or holds an equivalent post in public section undertaking of an employee under a private employer and draws a salary: which is not less than of a Class II Officer (initial stage of the pay scale of Rs.2050-3950)

¶56

(ii) He/She or either of his/her parents/guardian his or her spouse is an income tax assessee or wealth tax assessee

¶57

(iii) He/She or either of his/her parents or guardian or his or her spouse is assessed to sales tax

¶58

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶59

5/9

¶60

(iv) He/She or either of his/her parents/guardian his or her spouse or both together owns more than 8 hectares of rain fed or dry land or its equivalent.

¶61

4 It was also submitted at the bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though he was elected as a Councilor but upon the Election Petition filed by the defeated candidate Mr K Krishnaraj Hegde,

¶62

MFA 10283/2013, came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge of this

¶63

Court on 10.3.2015 in following terms:

¶64

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT

¶65

NOTIFICATION NO.HUD 636 MLR 95 BANGALORE, DATED 16.10.1995

¶66

Note: …….. (QUOTED ABOVE)

¶67

18 In page 15 of the said notification, Christians and Jains (digambaras) would come under ‘B’ category of backward class. Admittedly the petitionerKrishnaraj Hegde is a Jain (Digambara), and the 1^st respondent is a Catholic Christian. But the note appended to the said notification in page 15 excludes certain persons from B category from contesting an election to the Town Municipality or City Municipality. If a person is an income tax assessee or sales tax assessee, or his spouse is a Class I or II officer in the service of the Government, such person would be disqualified from contesting the said election.

¶68

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶69

6/9

¶70

19 The note appended to the said notification is in page 15 and the same is extracted below:

¶71

(not quoted here as already quoted above)

¶72

20 Column No.(ii) in the note appended to the gazette notification clearly disqualifies a person belonging to category B from contesting as a candidate for the post of councilor of a City Municipal/Town Municipal Council or Town Panchayath in Karnataka, if he or she is an income tax or sales tax assessee. It is the assertion of the petitioner both in the election petition as well as his oral evidence that the 1^st respondent was an income tax and sales tax assessee as on the date of filing of the nomination. What is held by the learned judge of the Election Tribunal is that the petitioner had not raised his little finger when the nomination of the 1^st respondent was taken up for scrutiny by the returning officer.

¶73

The appeal is allowed with costs. The order dated 11.11.2013 passed in Election Petition No.1/13 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karkala, upholding the lection of the 1^st respondent from Ward No.21 of Moodabidri Town in the election held on 7.3.2013 is set aside. Consequently the election of the 1^st respondent, Mr Anil C Lobo as Councilor to Town Municipal Council, Moodabidri is set aside with immediate effect.

¶74

Registry to send a copy of the operative portion of the order to the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannda District immediately.

¶75

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶76

7/9

¶77

after the said judgment was pronounced against him by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it appears that petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 8.3.2016 challenging the aforesaid condition itself in the notification dated 16.10.1995.

¶78

5 Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the

¶79

clear opinion that the present writ petitions are devoid of any merit. Firstly, the challenge has been laid to a Notification of 1995 after about twenty years of its existence. For good twenty years, the said notification making out this reasonable classification of different people belonging to backward classes dividing them into two categories, Category A and Category B, has held the field. Secondly, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner because the Note of Category B reproduced above, clearly makes a reasonable classification of persons belonging to higher echelons in the Backward Classes viz., that if the candidate concerned or his or her parents or spouse is a Class I or Class

¶80

II government servant or he is an income tax or wealth tax assessee or owns more than 8 hectares of rain fed or dry land. This obviously indicates

¶81

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶82

8/9

¶83

that the creamy layer of Category B caste people were intended to be

¶84

given no benefit by way of any separate reservation, as stated in the notification dated 16.10.1995. The petitioner who is admittedly an income tax assessee, seeks to challenge this condition because that has resulted in he being not allowed to contest the said election.

¶85

6 This Court does not find any ground to hold this condition to be falling foul of Art.14 of the Constitution of India or that any unreasonable classification is made by the Legislature while issuing the notification dated 16.10.1995. The nexus with the object sought to be achieved by this classification is obvious and writ large on the face of it and therefore, the petitioner obviously does not fall within the category of persons belonging

¶86

to Category B who can claim reservation for the post of Mayor or President of Municipal Corporation as per the said notification in view of the conditions or exceptions carved out in the form of Note to the said notification. The writ petitions are thus, found to be devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.

¶87

WPs 12571/16 c/w 58110-111/2015 Anil Lobo Vs State of Karnataka & Ors

¶88

9/9

¶89

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶90

Sd/Judge

¶91

Anil Lobo, 43 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Lobo, 43 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manas Bar and Restaurant Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Sri Rajarajeshwari Public School Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs Vs State of Karnataka - by Its

M v Dinesh Kumar Vs the Zilla Panchayat

A R Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka