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

2001 Supreme(Kar) 16

K.SREEDHAR RAO, G.C.BHARUKA
A. RAMDAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
A.N.JAYARAM, ASHOK HARANAHAFLI, SUDEESH PAI

G. C. BHARUKA, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions have been filed as public interest litigations. The petitioner in W. P. No. 39572 of 2000 is a member of the Karnataka legislative assembly elected from krishnaraja constituency mysore. The petitioner in W. P. No. 31 of 2001 is the resident of raichur town and is an elected member from ward 17, raichur city municipal council. They have filed the present writ petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the two notifications dated 11-12-2000 issued by the state government respectively under Section 21 read with Section 7 of the Karnataka municipal corporations Act, 1976 (in short, the 'corporation act') and under Section 13 of the municipalities Act, 1964 (in short, the 'municipalities act' ).

( 2 ) THE impugned notifications pertain to the corporation of city of Mysore and city municipal council of raichur. These notifications have been placed at annexures-a to the respective writ petitions. By these notifications, the state government has inter alia provided for reservation for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, backward classes and for women in each territorial ward. Annexure-1 to the impugned notifications sets out categor

























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