Dismissed

Smt. M L Dhanalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2023WP/15578/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged a notification prescribing reservation for Scheduled Tribe and female categories in Grama Panchayats. The court heard arguments regarding the application of GPPVP guidelines and relevant government orders. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner correctly followed the established rotation procedure and guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed.

Smt. M L Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Election Law | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.15578 OF 2023 (LB-ELE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M L DHANALAKSHMI W/O BALACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 139, BIDARAKERE, MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571802

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. VINAY KUMAR N R S/O N.S. RAMU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NENAGANAHALLI MALLENAHALLI BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571802

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571401

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571401

¶19

THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION 2^ND AND 3^RD FLOOR, 16, BELLARY ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE – 560025

¶20

THE LALANAKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401 REPRESENTED BY ITS PDO

¶21

THE BINDAGANAVILE GRAM PANCHAYATH NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401 REPRESENTED BY ITS PDO

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. VIKRAM H BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4) V/O DT. 20.07.2023, NOTICE TO R5 & R6 IS D/W

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. EL.N(2)10/2023-24 DATED17/06/2023 PASSED BY THE R3 PRESCRIBING THE RESERVATION TO THE POST OF ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA IN DIFFERENT GRAMA PANCHAYATS SITUATED

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶27

IN NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING – B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶31

The petitioner No.1 is a member of Lalanakere

¶32

Grama Panchayat and petitioner No.2 is a member of Bindaganavile Grama Panchayat, both in Nagamangala Taluk. The petitioners are aggrieved of the notification issued by the 3^rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner cum Election Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that Scheduled Tribe category reservation was never given to the post of Adhyaksha of Lalanakere Grama Panchayat and therefore the reservation of Scheduled Tribe should have been given. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is no reservation for Scheduled Tribe category seats in the entire Taluk and therefore it is impermissible for the Deputy Commissioner to make any reservation to any of the Grama Panchayat in the taluk for Scheduled Tribe category.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶34

Insofar as the petitioner No.2 is concerned,

¶35

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reservation for the post of Adhyaksha should have been given to Scheduled Caste and not further reservation for female category, in Bindiganavele Grama Panchayat. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that in the year 2020 (I term) Scheduled Caste reservation was given to Bindiganavele Grama Panchayat. In terms of the guidelines, when the Deputy Commissioner took up the rotation in reservation in Scheduled Castes category, it was found that having regard to the total number of seats of Scheduled Castes and there being 3 posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes category in the taluk, Bramhadevarahalli, Bindiganvele and Anchechittanhalli Grama Panchayats were found to be eligible. Further 2 posts out of the 3 are required to be reserved for female category. Anchechittanhalli which would had general reservation in the I term of the year 2020 elections was directly eligible for allotment of Scheduled Castes (Female) category. This is based on the Clause 4 of the guidelines

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶37

which clearly states that as far as possible, while allocating reservation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category, regard should be had to the fact that if in the previous round of elections the reservation was provided to a female category, then reservation of female category to such grama panchayat should be avoided. Therefore since Anchechittanhalli had general reservation and not in female category, said grama panchayat become directly eligible for allotment of Scheduled Caste female category. Thereafter one more seat of the female category to be allotted between Bindiganvele and Bramhadevarahalli. Since both the grama panchayats earlier had female reservation, by way of picking a lottery, the Scheduled Caste female reservation fell to Bindiganavele. The learned Additional Advocate General would therefore submits that the Deputy Commissioner has followed the guidelines and no fault can be found in the impugned notification.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25448 WP No. 15578 of 2023

¶39

Learned Additional Advocate General submits

¶40

that commencing from the year 2020, a computer system known as GPPVP application is put in place for rotation in reservation and human intervention is not permissible. Learned Additional Advocate General would therefore submits the Deputy Commissioner has followed the guidelines which is in the form of a Government Order dated 25.05.2023 which provides the method and steps which are required to be followed.

¶41

In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Deputy Commissioner has followed the procedure contemplated in the guidelines while rotating the reservation.

¶42

Consequently, the writ petition stands

¶43

dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

KLY

Smt. M L Dhanalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M L Dhanalakshmi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka

Vaishak N Naik Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Chinnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. J. Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka