Allowed

Mr Zeeshan Mahmood v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2021WP/5887/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenged the notification of 16.03.2021 regarding reservation categories for councillor wards in Sira City Municipal Council. The court observed that while the authorities followed the sequence of rotation for initial wards, they deviated from the pattern starting from Ward 11 without explanation. Consequently, the court found fault with the overall rotation and the repetiti

What did the court decide?

The impugned notification dated 16.03.2021 was quashed. The authorities were directed to rework the rotation of reservation considering objections and court observations.

Mr Zeeshan Mahmood Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5886/2021(LB-ELE) C/W WRIT PETITION NOs.5887/2021, 5889/2021(LBELE)

¶6

IN W.P. NO.5886/2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . MR HEMANTH KUMAR S G S/O GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SOPPINAHATTI, SIRA-572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 . MR T SRINIVAS S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SOPPINAHATTI, SIRA-572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 . MR SRINIVASA CHAR S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAN CHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT SOPPINAHATT, SIRA-572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

¶13

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101 3 . THE SIRA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIRA-572137 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO 4 . THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNIGHAM ROAD, PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI S RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD 16.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶16

IN W.P. NO.5887/2021

¶17

BETWEEN

¶18

1 . MR ZEESHAN MAHMOOD

¶19

¶20

S/O ALLHA BAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MADHUGIRI ROAD, BEGUM MOHALLA SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶21

2 . MR. MUKTHAR AHAMED S/O MOHAMMED AMMER AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶22

3 . MR. NAZEER SAB S/O LATE JABBAR SAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶23

4 . MR. MOHAMMED FAYAZ S/O LATE ABDUL WAHAB SAB AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶24

5 . MR. SATTAR SAB S/O LATE MUSA SAB AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶25

¶26

6 . MR. SYED MUSTHAFA S/O SYED SAB AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT 7 . MR. MAHBOOB PASHA S/O LATE GOWS SAB AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT WARD NO. 17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT 8 . MR. RIYAZ AHAMED S/O ANWAR SAB AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.17, BEGUM MOHALLA SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT 9 . MR. ANWAR S/O PAKRUDDIN SAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT 10 . MRS. ISHRATH W/O ANWAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT WARD NO.17, MAHABOOB NAGAR SIRA 572137 TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶27

...PETITIONERS

¶28

¶29

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND

¶31

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 572101

¶32

3 . TEH SIRA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIRA 572137 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO

¶33

4 . THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNIGHAM ROAD, PARK HOUSEM BENGALURU 560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI S RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SMT VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD 16.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶37

IN W.P. NO.5889/2021

¶38

BETWEEN

¶39

1 . MR. S. J. MOHAMMED IRSHAD AHMED

¶40

¶41

S/O. LATE S. M. ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO. 24, JAMIYA NAGAR, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶42

2 . MR. MUKTHAR AHMED S/O. LATE RAJA AHMED, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO. 24, JAMIYA NAGAR, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶43

3 . MR. H. NASIR SAB S/O. LATE HAMEED SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO. 24, JAMIYA NAGAR, SIRA-572 137, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶45

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶46

3 . THE SIRA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

¶47

¶48

SIRA-572 137, REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO

¶49

4 . THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNINGHAM ROAD, PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI S RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶52

SMT VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 )

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DTD 16.03.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶54

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶55

COMMON ORDER

¶56

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶57

The petitioners are residents of Soppinahatti, Sira Taluk. Their grievance is with respect to the reservation provided to Wards No.9, 17 and 24 of the Sira City Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘CMC’, for short).

¶58

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, appearing

¶59

for the petitioners would submit that Sira CMC was established in

¶60

¶61

the year 2007 and the reservations that were provided for the Councillors in the year 2007 was repeated in the year 2013, in terms of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter during the year 2018 when reservations were announced, several persons being aggrieved by the reservations provided to various wards of Sira CMC approached this Court in W.P.Nos.40746-750/2018. This Court by a common order dated 14.01.2019 in W.P.No.44499/2018 and connected matters, set aside the notification dated 30.07.2018 in its entirety in the light of repetition and for being in violation of the principles stated therein. Thereafter, a draft notification dated 21.01.2021 was issued and the same was again questioned before this Court in W.P.No.2736/2021. This Court by order dated 09.02.2021 observed that the notification was still in the draft form and there was scope for the respondent-authorities to consider the objections that were filed by the petitioners and therefore, disposed of the said writ petition directing the State Government and the Deputy Commissioner to consider the objections filed by the petitioners before finalizing the draft notification.

¶62

¶63

The learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the draft notification in respect Ward No.9 what was proposed to be reserved was General (Woman) category and the very same category has been finalized, without considering the objections filed by the petitioners. Insofar as Ward No.17 is concerned, in the notification of July 2018 what was reserved was BCA-Woman and in the draft notification dated 21.01.2021 what was proposed to be reserved was General category and what is now reserved in the final notification dated 16.03.2021 is BCB category. In respect of ward No.24 in the final notification of July 2018 what was reserved was General Category, in the draft notification dated 21.01.2021 what was proposed to be reserved was General (Woman) and the same has been finalized in the impugned notification dated 16.03.2021.

¶64

The learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the Guidelines dated 18.12.2013 issued by the State Government. Specific attention is drawn to Clause (10) of the Government order and the sequence provided in Clause (12). It is submitted that Clause (10) specifically provides that there shall not be repetition of the category of reservation. It is

¶65

10 -

¶66

specifically provided that if a reservation is given to woman in any of the categories including reserved categories, as far as possible, in the next round of elections, woman category should not be repeated. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in case of Ward No.9 there is a clear case of repetition of woman category. The same problem persists even in case of Ward No.24. The learned Senior Counsel submits that due care has been taken in preparing the guidelines and at clause (12) the sequence of rotation in reservation has been provided. In terms of the said sequence, reservation should start from the category of SC Woman. In fact, the starting point of providing reservation is always with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories since the population figures of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are available and it is not so in the case of backward classes. It is submitted that the second round of sequence commences after the SCW, ST, SC, STW is allocated. The second sequence would start from BCA (Woman), followed by General, followed by BCB (Woman), followed by General, followed by BCA, followed by General Woman and Backward Class (B). Attention of this Court is drawn to the unmistakable

¶67

11 -

¶68

sequence provided in the Guidelines which would show that if a reservation is provided for Woman, in the following election, Woman category is avoided.

¶69

With reference to reservation provided to Ward Nos.9 and 24, it is contended that during the previous occasion reservation having been provided for woman, if due care was taken and the objections filed by the petitioners was considered in the right spirit, the authorities would not have committed the mistake of repeating the woman category, although the type of reservation may have changed when compared to the previous reservation.

¶70

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the respondent-State and the Deputy Commissioner would draw the attention of this Court to paragraph-15 of the order dated 14.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.44499/2018. It is submitted that although five writ petitions were filed with respect to Sira CMC, this Court found that there has been repetition in case of Ward No.19 only. It is submitted that due care has been taken to rectify the mistake committed with respect to Ward No.19. Although

¶71

12 -

¶72

grievance was raised at the hands of the petitioners herein with respect to Ward Nos.9, 17 and 24 also, this Court did not find any fault in the reservation provided to Wards No.9, 17 and 24. Nevertheless, it is submitted that if change was required to be made in the ward No.19, obviously same change is inevitable in the reservation provided to other wards also. It is therefore submitted that the reservation provided to ward No.9 in the notification of July 2018 not being faulted with by this Court, the continuation of the same reservation cannot be held to be contrary to the directions given by this Court. In respect of Ward Nos.17 and 24, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted a memo dated 25.03.2021 along with the work sheet of reservation of wards pertaining to Sira CMC; list of objections received and considered by the authorities and the endorsement issued to the petitioners herein along with population data of Sira CMC, as certified by the Deputy Commissioner, Sira.

¶73

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Jayakumar S.Patil, for the petitioners, Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State and the Deputy Commissioner and perused the petition papers.

¶74

13 -

¶75

The Guidelines dated 18.12.2013 and the reservations provided to the City Municipal Council have fallen for consideration at the hands of this Court on earlier occasion, including the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.44499/2018 and connected matters. Regard being had to the fact that the Guidelines provided the mode and method of providing reservation and rotations, which when followed would avoid repetition, has been the opinion of this Court. Insofar as the observations and directions given by this Court in W.P.No.44499/2018, the learned Additional Advocate General is right in his submissions that although five writ petitions were

¶76

filed with respect to Sira CMC, this Court found that the notification of July 2018 is required to be set aside in its entirety only because of the repetition found in ward No.19. To that extent, the learned Additional Advocate General is right in his submission that the reservation provided to Ward No.9 in the notification of July 2018 has been repeated in the impugned notification dated 16.03.2021 and therefore no fault could be found. However, this Court has gone through the work sheet provided by the respondent-State and it is found that the

¶77

14 -

¶78

sequence as provided in Clause (12) has been followed from Sl.Nos.1 to 10. However, from Ward No.11, the sequence provided in Clause (12) has not been followed. If the authorities had followed the sequence as provided in Clause (12) and wherever they encounter some difficulty, there was provision for putting up a note stating as to why there should be a deviation from the sequence. That exercise having not been undertaken by the authorities, the reservation provided to Ward Nos.17 and 24 could be found fault with. The endorsement issued by the authorities to the petitioners does not clarify the position in so many words. No specific reason is assigned by the Authorities as to why the sequence has not been followed. If the sequence as provided in Clause (12) was followed, things would have changed from Ward No.11. As could be seen from the work sheet and the final notification issued, reservation of General Category has been given to ward Nos.11, 12 and 13 continuously. This is clearly in contravention to the sequence provided in the guidelines.

¶79

The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of Ward Nos.9 and 24, the reservation in favour of (Woman) has

¶80

15 -

¶81

been repeated in contravention to Clause (10). Insofar as Ward No.17 is concerned, in the notification of July 2018 the reservation was provided for BCA (Woman). On the setting aside of the notification of July 2018, in the draft notification what was proposed to be provided was General Category. However, in the impugned notification, BCB reservation is provided for. There is no reason assigned as to why the change has been brought about when compared to the draft notification.

¶82

For the reasons stated above, since the authorities have not followed the sequence as provided in the guidelines starting from Ward No.11, the impugned notification is required to be set aside. The authorities have to rework the rotation of reservation in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶83

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notification dated 16.03.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. The authorities shall consider the objections filed by the petitioners and the observations made by this Court hereinabove and finalize the notification of reservation for election of the Councillors of Sira CMC, at the earliest.

¶84

16 -

¶85

In view of disposal of the main petitions pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶86

It is ordered accordingly.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

JT/-

Mr Zeeshan Mahmood v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Zeeshan Mahmood v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanay Yadwadkar Vs Union of India

Adithya Mathialagan Vs Union of India

Kum S.Gayathri Vs Union of Inida

Smt. E Pushpa Vs State of Karnataka

C.C.Santhosh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Amzad Vs the State of Karnataka