Sri P. Siddappa Reddy and Smt. Padma Reddy vs State of Karnataka and State Election Commission

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are calling in question the notification dated 18.01.2010. The notification is issued making reservations for the different seats in Chandapura Grama Panchayat.

Though several contentions have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the primary contention is that all the seats in Ramasagara constituency has been reserved to women candidates and as such the same is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Election Commission. In this regard, it is pointed out, the reservations made in Ramasagara constituency is for schedule caste, backward class - A, and two seats for general. Similarly it is pointed out, the seat is also reserved have been assigned for general candidates in reserved categories.

The learned Government Advocate would however seek to justify the notification contending that the reservations have been made presently keeping in view allocations which was made for the Elections 2005. Therefore, while carrying out the rotations, the inevitable position is that in some constituency there would be repetition. That itself cannot be considered to strike down the notification.

As already noticed, though rival contentions have been advanced on several issues, the only reason that is sufficient to look into the matter and hold the notification as not sustainable is in Ramasagara all the reserved seats have been allotted to women candidates. The guidelines issued by the State Election Commission on 18.11.2009 would clearly indicate that such reservations in respect of all categories to women cannot be made. Therefore, in the said notification dated 18.01.2010, when such reservations are made in respect of one constituency and same has to be rectified, the second respondent would have to redo the allocations of seats keeping all these aspects in mind. Hence, notification dated 18.01.2008 in so far as Chandapura Grama Panchayat is concerned stands quashed.

The second respondent is directed to redo the same and publish the notification as expeditiously as possible but not latter than one week from the date on which the certified copy of this order is furnished to the second respondent.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.