Sri Narayanaswamy M Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26000 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY M S/O. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BISUVANAHALLI VEERAPURA POST-561203 KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

SRI. RAMESH T S/O TIRUMALAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BISUVANAHALLI VEERAPURA POST-561203 KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. RAVIKUMAR M S/O LATE MUNISHYAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS KASUVANAHALLI VEERAPURA POST-561203 KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI. ANANDA S/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS KASUVANAHALLI VEERAPURA POST-561203 KASABA HOBLI

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE BEHIND K.S.C.M.F. BUILDING NO.8, 1^ST FLOOR, CUNNING HAM ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BEERASANDRA-562110 DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶21

BASHETTIHALLI PATTANA PANCHAYATH DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-560203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONGWITH SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;

¶24

SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶25

SRI. M. MUNIGANGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.LO.E E-150 EAP 2022, BENGALURU DATED 20.07.2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION, SO FOR IT RELATES TO CONSTITUTING BISAVANAHALLI AND KASAVANAHALLI INTO ONE WARD I.E, WARD NO.6 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No.Lo.E E-150 EAP 2022 dated 20.07.2022 in so far as it relates to constituting Bisavanahalli and Kasavanahalli into one ward. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to reconsider the delimitation notification based on the density of population in Bashettihalli Pattana Panchyat.

¶34

(i) The petitioners are permanent residents of Bisuvanahalli and Kasavanahalli which lies within the jurisdiction of Bashettihalli Pattana Panchayat. The respondent No.1 in terms of a notification bearing No.NaAE 09 MLR 2020 dated 24.02.2021 declared Bashettihalli Grama Panchyat as Bashettihalli Pattana Panchayat. Pursuant to the said notification, respondent No.3 issued a draft delimitation notification bearing No.ELN(PAM)CR:16/2020-21 dated 04.05.2022 proposing to delimit the Town Panchyat area into

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

19 wards on the basis of 2011 census and invited objections from the general public.

¶39

(ii) Under the said draft delimitation, Raghunathapura and Thammashettihalli villages were shown as Ward No.1 with a population of 776, Adinarayana Hosahalli, Moparahalli and Nagadenahalli villages were shown as Ward No.2 with a population of 1340, Obadenahalli was shown as Ward No.3 with a population of 566, South-Part of Guddadahalli and East-Part of Guddadahalli shown as Ward No.4 with population of 906, Kolipura village including area from Varadanahalli Muniyappa farm to colony as Ward No.5 with population of 782, Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahalli were shown as Ward No.6 with population of 1448, Ellupura village (from Anjaneyaswami Temple to South-Part of Railway Gate and West-part of Railway road) was shown as Ward No.7 with population of 1143. Then, Ellupura village (from Anjaneyaswami Temple up to Northportion of Railway Gate and from Anjanenya Swami Temple up to West-portion of Bisuvanahalli village road) was shown as Ward No.8 with population of 856, Varadanahalli (old village) and Ashvathapa layout was shown as Ward No.9 with

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

population of 974. Varadanahalli and Thulisiyan layout was shown as Ward No.10 with population of 1005, Basaveshwara Nagara, Kempegowda Nagara (South Division) and KIADB quarters was shown as Ward No.11 with population of 1144, (Basaveshwara Nagara Ward), Bank Circle, Veerapua Road, 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th road of Vijayanagara was shown as Ward No.12 with population of 1034, Vijayanagara 1^st road to 3^rd road and underneath of Railway Road (including Muneshwara Layout) was shown as Ward No.13 with population of 612, Premkumar House Road, Janatha Colony and Kempegowda Nagara (North Division) was shown as Ward No.14 with population of 879. Hale Uru and Ramachandrappa Layout was shown as Ward No.15 with 897 of population, Ambedkar Nagar, Beside Hale Uru Panchayati, behind Government School and area from Southern side of Krishnappa Layout was shown as Ward No.16 with 1172 population, Kolambiya Layout and Vijayanagara 1^st Cross (North Division) was shown as Ward No.17 with population of 839 and Vinayaka Nagara and Krishnappa Layout North area was shown as Ward No.18 with population of 1366. Then (Vinayaka Nagara Ward) and Arehalli Village, Scout Camp Road, Sarvagna Nagara, North-Area of Gurappana Palya and

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

West-area of Guddadahalli was shown as Ward No.19 with population of 974 population (Arehalli Guddadahalli Ward II).

¶46

(iii) The petitioners contend that the villagers of Kasavanahalli, Bisuvanahalli, Nagadevanahalli, Adinarayana Hosahalli, Moparahalli and Varadarahalli submitted objections to the draft delimitation notification, contending that while conducting the local survey, preference was given to Bashettihalli village. They therefore requested to reconsider the draft delimitation notification and bifurcation of the wards on the basis of population density by reducing the number of wards allotted to Bashettihalli village.

¶47

(iv) The petitioners contend that Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahalli were constituted as Ward No.6 with a population of 1448, though the present population of the said villages put together is 2500. The petitioners further contend that the officers who conducted the local survey did not consider Ward No.2 (Moparahalli, Adinarayana Hosahalli and Nagadenahalli Ward) which comprised three villages whose population exceeded 1000 as per the 2011 census. Therefore, the villagers of Kasavanahalli, Bisuvanahalli, Nagadenahalli and

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Adinarayaana Hosahalli submitted representations to respondent Nos.2 and 3 bringing to their notice the injustice caused to villagers of Kasavanahalli, Bisuvanahalli, Moparahalli, Adinarayana Hosahalli and Nagadenahalli and requested allotment of one ward to Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahallli and one ward to Moparahalli and Adinaryana Hosahalli. Even after receipt of the objections, the final delimitation notification is issued without making any changes to the draft delimitation notification. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the final delimitation notification and have also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to reconsider the delimitation of the Bashettihalli Town Pancahyat area.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the aforesaid contentions and submits that the respondents are bound to identify the wards on the basis of population and, as far as practicable, keep them equal. He contends that in the instant case, a perusal of the delimitation based on population would show that the exercise is not carried out properly, but is done arbitrarily. In this regard, he invited the attention of the Court to the delimitation of Ward No.3 with a population of 566,

¶53

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Ward No.5 with a population of 782, Ward No.13, with a population 612 and Ward No.14 with a population of 879 and ward No.17 with a population of 839. He further contends that Ward Nos.2, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 18 are divided without reference to population. He therefore contends that the delimitation notification is without any basis and is whimsical. He further contends that Bashettihalli Panchayat comprised of six wards and by virtue of the impugned delimitation notification, the number of wards in Bashettihalli area is increased to 08. He submits that the wards in Bashettihalli could be reduced to 07 and Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahalli could be bifurcated into two wards so that the final tally is 19.

¶56

(i) The writ petition is opposed by the respondents who have filed a statement of objections inter alia contending that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the notification dated 24.02.2021 declaring Bashettihalli Grama Panchayat as Bashettihalli Pattana Panchayat is issued, pursuant to which a delimitation notification dated 04.05.2022 was issued proposing to delimit the Panchayat area into 19

¶57

9 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

wards on the basis of the 2011 Census and objections were invited from the general public.

¶61

(ii) It is contended that some villagers of Kasvahanalli and Bisuvanahalli and other villages submitted objections to the draft notification. The Deputy Commissioner considered the objection of the petitioners and after obtaining a report from the Thasildar, Doddaballapur and the Chief Officer, Bashettihalli Town Panchayath, the objections of the petitioners and other villagers were rejected.

¶62

(iii) It is contented that the writ petition relates to the bifurcation of Kasavanahalli, Bisuvanahalli, Nagadenahalli, and Adinarayana Hosahalli which is carried out in accordance with the 2011 Census and as per the guidelines of the Government of India as well as the Gazette dated 15.02.2014. As per the said Gazette notification, the total population of Bashettihalli Town Panchayath is 18716 comprising of 13 villages, and in view of the notification, 19 wards are required to be delimited on the basis of population.

¶63

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

(iv) It is contented that the population of Bashettihalli town is about 7943 and therefore 08 wards were created in respect of Bashettihalli town. While, the population of Varadanahalli was 2761 which includes Kolipura and therefore 03 wards are formed. Likewise the population of Yallupura population is 2002 and 02 wards are created. The population of Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahalli is 603 and 845 respectively and hence both are put together in 01 ward. Similarly, the population of Arehalli and Guddadahalli is 1880 and hence 02 wards are created. The population of Obadenahalli is 566 and hence, one ward is created. The population of Adinarayana Hosahalli (Moparalli) is 659, while Nagadenahalli is 681 and both are put together in 01 ward. The population of Raghunathpura is 776 and the population of Thammashetty Halli is added to it and 01 ward is created for the two villages.

¶66

(v) It is contented that delimitation cannot be done on the basis of polling station, but has to be undertaken having regard to convenience and physical boundaries. Hence, it is claimed that Kasavanahalli and Bisuvanahalli were put together in one ward.

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The learned Additional Advocate General has also

¶71

placed on record the notification dated 15.02.2014, which spells out the manner of delimitation of the wards. For the purpose of this petition, Clause No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are relevant and are extracted below:

¶72

Goventment Order No.UDD 4 MLR 2014. Bangalore, dated: 15.02.2014

¶73

The Deputy Commissioners while exercising the power delegated, with respect to delimitation of the wards of the Urban Local Bodies as per Section 13 & Section 352(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 vide Government Notification No.UDD 23 TMS 2014, dated: 07.02.2014 should strictly adhere to the following guidelines.

¶74

1. The wards in Urban Local Bodies shall be delimited on the basis of the last preceding census figures published by the Government of India.

¶75

2. With respect to Town Municipal Council and City Municipal Council, the number of wards, shall be decided in accordance with the Section 11(1)(a) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964, the relevant portion which is as follows:

¶76

- 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

*Sl.* *No.*	*Population of the municipal area*	*Number of* *councilors*
1.	For a municipal area with a population of not less than 20000 but less than 40,000	23
2.	For a municipal area with a population of not less than 40000 but less than 50,000	27
3.	For a municipal area with a population of not less than 50000 but less than one lakh	31
4.	For a municipal area with a population of not less than one lakh but less than three lakhs	35

¶79

3. With respect to Town Panchayats, the number of wards shall be considered, as determined by the Government vide Government notification No.HUD 595 MLR 95 dated 26.09.1995. The relevant portion of the notification has been reproduced as

¶80

follows:

¶81

Town Pa	nchayats with populations	No. of Seats
1.	10000-11000	11
2.	11001-12000	12
3.	12001-13000	13
4.	13001-14000	14
5	14001-15000	15
6.	14001 15000 15001-16000	16
7	16001-17000	17
8	17001-18000	18
9	18001-19000	19
10	19001-20000	20

¶82

4. Each Ward in the Urban Local Body shall be so delimited that the population of all wards shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the particular Urban Local Body.

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶84

13 -

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

5. All wards shall, as far as practicable, be geographically compact areas, and in delimiting them regard shall be add to the physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience.

¶87

6. An area within a ward shall not extend to other wards, such that a ward does not have an enclave/Island within it of certain areas belonging to another ward having no contiguity to other areas of the concerned ward.

¶88

7. Apart from contiguity, geographical features, connectivity, means of communication, public convenience will also be kept in mind while effecting delimitation and areas divided by reverse or hilly ranges or forests or ravines and other such a natural barriers will not be put in the same ward.

¶89

8. Blocks have some characteristics such as it is a colony or a particular street pattern or as characteristics like it may be a slum area. Therefore, it may be desirable to keep it as far as practicable, while effecting ward delimitation it may be seen that the blocks are maintained intact in one of the wards.

¶90

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

9. A deviation, however to an extent of 10 percent of population would be acceptable if the geographical features, means of communication, public convenience, contiguity of the areas and necessity to avoid breaking up of administrative units so demand."

¶93

A map of the delimitation of Bashettihalli Town

¶94

Panchayat is also enclosed which shows that the de-limitation is more or less based on the geographical boundary of villages and also based on the population.

¶95

The learned Additional Advocate General while reiterating the aforesaid contentions submits that the petitioners being villagers of Bisuvanahalli and Kasavanahalli, cannot raise issues relating to other wards. She contends that Bisuvanahali and Kasavanahali are situated at the bottom most portion of the ward and are isolated and therefore cannot be integrated into any other ward. She therefore contends that both the villages were amalgamated into one ward. She further contends that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the delimitation, as their objections are not considered by the respondent Nos.3. She also contends that as per Section

¶96

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

13(1)(A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1964' for short) there is an embargo on calling in question any notification issued under Section 13(1) of Act, 1964 before any Court of law.

¶99

She therefore contends that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the delimitation notification. Besides, this she contends that delimitation cannot be done on mathematical precision solely on the basis of population. She contends that while undertaking the exercise of delimitation, several factors are required to be taken into consideration such as, ensuring the compactness of the area, physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience etc. She contends that in all the wards so delimited, due care is taken to ensure that the electorate has an easy access to exercise their franchise. She therefore submits that the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to bifurcate the Town Panchayath area into constituencies based on an arithmetical division of population.

¶100

16 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

I have considered submissions made by learned

¶104

counsel for the petitioners and the learned AAG for the respondents.

¶105

The petitioners have submitted their objections to the draft delimitation notification. These objections appear to have been considered by respondent No.3 and an endorsement dated 20.07.2022 is purportedly issued. However, the petitioners have not disclosed the same in this writ petition.

¶106

Be that as it may, the petitioners are concerned with the delimitation of Bisuvanahalli and Kasavanahalli into one ward whose total population is 1448. The argument of the petitioners is that the wards must have been divided based on population. The map of the delimited constituencies placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General shows that both Bisuvanahali and Kasavanahalli are located at the bottom most portion of the constituency of the Town Panchayat area and cannot be integrated into any other ward. The Bashettihalli area which has a population of nearly 8,000 is bifurcated into 08 wards which is based on population. The contention of the petitioners that Bashettihalli area could be restricted to 06 wards, has no basis. Therefore as rightly contended by the

¶107

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:52468 WP No. 26000 of 2022

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

learned Additional Advocate General, the exercise of delimitation is a technical issue which has to be worked out based on various factors. The petitioners have not disclosed as to how a part of the population of Bisuvanahalli and Kasavanahalli could be merged into any, adjoining ward. They also have not disclosed what are the facilities available in the adjoining ward in case, if the population of Bisuvanahalli and Kasavanahalli are merged into the adjoining ward.

¶110

As rightly contented, these are all too technical matters where this Court cannot exercise discretion to undo the delimitation exercise undertaken by the respondents. Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India and Section 13(1)A of the Act, 1964 also prohibit questioning of a notification issued under Section 13 of the Act, 1964.

¶111

In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶112

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶113

HJ

¶114

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Narayanaswamy M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Karnataka Waste Management Project Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Surya International Social Service Organisation Vs State of Karnataka

K Muniraju Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Ashok Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja L Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nayana Shetty Vs Deputy Commissioner