Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 364
High Court of Karnataka
D.H.WAGHELA & RAM MOHAN REDDY, JJ.
The Chief Secretary, State Of Karnataka & Another – Appellant
Versus
C.K. Rama Murthy & Others – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 1225 & 1234-36 of 2015 (LB-ELE)
Decided On : 24-04-2015
For the Appellants:Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General a/w A.S. Ponnanna, Addl. Advocate General, R. Devdas, Prl. Government Advocate, Shweta Krishnappa, HCGP.
For the Respondents:R1, D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel a/w A.V. Nishanth, Advocate, V. Lakshminarayan, Sr. Counsel a/w A. Shivarama, Chandrashekar, Advocates, R3, K.N. Phanindra, Advocate, R4, Ashok Haranahalli, Sr. Counsel.
Headnote:KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976 - Section 99: [D.H. Waghela, C.J. & Ram Mohan Reddy, JJ] Election - Term of BBMP - Government issuing notification to dissolve palike and hold election as its term coming to an end - Single Judge directing completion of election process within date specified on basis of existing delimitation of wards and updated electoral rolls - Held, Under Article 243U, the duration of the Municipality is fixed for a term of five years and it is stated that every Municipality shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Clause (3) of Article 243U states that an election to constitute a municipality shall be completed - (a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); or (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution. It is clear that the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. Any revision of electoral rolls shall be carried out in time and, if it cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, election has to be conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral rolls. It is true that there may be certain man-made calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities which could distract the authorities circumstances and under no circumstance would the election Commission be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Government and other authorities…It is further observed that, it is only when the Municipality is dissolved for any other reason and the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting the Municipality for such period. The entire provision in the Constitution was inserted to see that there should not be any delay in the constitution of the new Municipality every five years and in order to avoid the mischief of delaying the process of election and allowing the nominated bodies to continue, the provisions have been suitably added to the Constitution.
Having referred to the scheme of Part IX-A, it may be pertinent to also allude to relevant parts of the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Bill, 1991 which was enacted as the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992. It is, inter alia, stated therein that in many States, local bodies had become weak and ineffective on account of variety of reasons, including failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersession and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. Having regard to such inadequacies, it was considered necessary that provisions relating to Urban Local Bodies are incorporated in the Constitution particularly for, inter alia, ensuring regular conduct of elections and timely elections in the case of supersession. Accordingly, it was proposed to add a new part relating to the Urban Local Bodies in the Constitution to provide, inter alia, for fixed tenure of five years for the Municipality and re-election within six months of end of tenure. If a Municipality is dissolved before expiration of its duration, elections to be held within a period of six months of its dissolution.
D.H.Waghela, J. :
1. These appeals are preferred by the State Government from the common judgment and order dated 30.3.2015 in Writ Petition Nos. 7939-40/2015 C/W Writ Petition Nos. 8041 & 8318/2015. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who were the main petitioners before learned Single Judge and who claimed to be councilors of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) had pressed their petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to hold elections to BBMP on or before 22.4.2015.
2. The background in which the petitions were pressed included the fact that, earlier in November 2006, when the term of BBMP came to an end, the State Government had not held the election in time and, after the matter reaching this court, the Division Bench had directed the State Government on 2.7.2008 to conduct elections to the then Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike by initiating steps at the earliest. Even then, the Election Commission had published notification dated 6.3.2010 to hold the election to BBMP and the first meeting of the newly constituted Corporation was held on 23.4.2010. Therefore, the term of the present Corporation was expiring on 22.4.2015, but no steps were being initiated to hold the election.
3. As against such case of the original petitioners, the State Government had contended before learned Single Judge that it had issued show cause notice dated 18.3.2015 to the BBMP and others under Section 99 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short), to show cause why further action should not be initiated under that section. On the other hand, by Government Order dated 22.9.2014, a Committee was constituted to submit a report on bifurcation or trifurcation of the BBMP. The State Election Commission, respondent No.3 herein, stated before learned Single Judge that it was making sincere efforts since 17.6.2013 to ensure holding of election to the BBMP in time, but the State Government had not taken steps to notify delimitation of wards or reservation of seats in respect of 198 constituencies or wards of BBMP. Of late, the Commission was stated to have passed order dated 29.1.2015, nominating the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru and other such officers as District Election Officers and subsequently, on 7.2.2015, other officers were nominated as Returning Officers, Additional Returning Officers and Assistant Returning Officers for the purpose of conducting the election. According to the Commission, period of two months was required after the notification of delimitation of wards and reservation of wards by the State Government and it was not possible to prepare voters' list before delimitation of wards as boundaries of 198 wards may vary while carrying out the exercise of delimitation of wards and voters of one particular ward may be shifted to another ward. The Commission also contended that period of six weeks was required as per the calendar of events to hold election and announce results and thus, period of 105 days was required to conduct election after the notification of delimitation of wards and reservation of seats by the State Government. Under such circumstances, the Commission sought appropriate directions in the matter.
4. After considering the contentions of the parties and adverting to the Constitutional provisions and the precedents cited at the bar, learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, arrived at the conclusion that reconstitution on expiry of the term of BBMP or dissolution of BBMP could not be beyond a period of five years as the term of BBMP was expiring on 22.4.2015, and it cannot be extended any longer. It is held that, under no circumstances, can dissolution of BBMP could extend its term beyond five years and, even if an Administrator is to be appointed immediately, the Corporation would cease to function on the expiry of its term i.e., on 22.4.2015, and election would have to be held. It is categorically held in the impugned judgment that re
