SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Kar) 158

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ
HANUMANTHAPPA – Appellant
Versus
RETG. OFFICER TMC CHITTAPUR – Respondent


Advocates:
Babu Heddashetty

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the delimitation of the Divisions under Section 13 of the Karnataka municipalities Act, for the purpose of holding elections to Chittapur Town Municipal Council Gulbarga District. As evidenced by Annexure-A, There are five divisions, all of them carrving 3 seats each.

( 2 ) THE petitioner's grievance is that division No. 2 has voters numbering about 1330, while in the other divisions the number of voters are slightly in excess of 3000 or 2000. It is therefore, contended that the delimitation or the divisions created for the purposes of the election within the municipality violates the mandate of S. 13 of the kamataka Municipalities Act, 1964.

( 3 ) NOTHING under S. 13 can be considered as a mandate to the government to divide the divisions consisting of equal number of voters. But the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that it puts at an advantage a call didate contesting, in that division which has the least number of voters as against the candidates in the larger divisions where they have to spend more money and canvass with more s. 13-Requirement of. voters. I am unable to und





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top