2015 Supreme(Kar) 419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
C.K. Rama Murthy & Others - Petitioners
Vs.
State Election Commission & Others - Respondents
I.A. NOS. I to IX/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NOs.7939-40/2015 (LBBMP) c/w WRIT PETITION NOs.8041 & 8318/2015 (LBELE)
Decided on : 22.06.2015

DOCTRINE OF MERGER - APPLICABILITY - FINALITY OF LITIGATION - JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - STABILITY AND FINALITY

Headnote:

BBMP ELECTION - CONDUCT OF - DELIMITATION OF WARDS - RESERVATION OF SEATS - DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY SINGLE JUDGE - APPEAL FILED BY STATE - JUDGMENT OF SINGLE JUDGE SET ASIDE - SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSION - SLP CONVERTED INTO CIVIL APPEAL - APPEAL ALLOWED - ORDER OF SINGLE JUDGE RESTORED - APPLICATIONS FILED BY STATE AND IMPLEADING APPLICANTS FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 - MAINTAINABILITY - DOCTRINE OF MERGER - APPLICABILITY - FINALITY OF LITIGATION - JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE - JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - STABILITY AND FINALITY - APPLICATIONS DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Writ petitions were filed before the High Court seeking a direction to the State Election Commission to hold election to the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) on or before 22/04/2015. A direction was also sought to redetermine the wards and reservation of seats for the purpose of holding election on completion of the term of Corporation on 22/4/2015. The writ petitions were allowed by order dated 30/03/2015 with certain directions. That order was assailed by the State in W.A. Nos.1225/2015 and 1234-36/2015. By judgment dated 24/04/2015, writ appeals were allowed and order dated 30/03/2015 was set aside. Being aggrieved by judgment of the 1st Division Bench, the respondent State Election Commission as well as petitioners herein and petitioner, who had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench of this Court filed independent Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By Order dated 05/05/2015, leave was granted and Special Leave Petitions were converted into Civil Appeals and the appeals were allowed. Thereafter, the impleading applicants in I.A. No. II/15 and I.A. No. III/15, V/15 and VIII/15 had filed W.P. No. 23041/2015 and W.P. Nos. 23054-23092-98/2015, before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents therein to provide reservation as envisaged under Article 243T by taking into account the population Census Report of 2011 in terms of 243T of the Constitution. A direction was also sought to hold election to BBMP after conducting the exercise of delimitation of wards. Those writ petitions were heard by another learned Single Judge of this Court. In those matters the State through learned Additional Advocate General submitted that State intended to conduct delimitation of wards and reservation of seats in accordance with the census figures of 2011. Those writ petitions were disposed with the following observations: “However, as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is creating an obstacle for carrying out delimitation and for reservation of seats on the basis of Census of 2011, the Government undertakes to immediately file an application for clarification before the learned Single Judge. In light of the undertaking given by the learned AAG, no further order is to be passed by this Court. Therefore these writ petitions are hereby disposed”.

Finding of the Court:

1. The applications filed by the State and the impleading applicants are not maintainable. 2. Order dated 30.3.2015 would not call for any modification.

Issues: 1) Whether the applications filed by the State and the impleading applicants are maintainable? 2) If the answer to point No.1 is in the affirmative, whether the order dated 30.3.2015 would call for any modification?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the Apex Court passed in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction would prevail over the order of an inferior Court i.e., this Court. 2. The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid or universal application which can always be applied wherever there are two orders, one, by the inferior and other, by the superior Court or authority, passed in an appeal or a revision or when there is a fusion or merger of two orders, irrespective of the subject matter of the appeal or revisional order. 3. The scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute has to be considered. 4. The application of doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. 5. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. 6. The doctrine of merger fully applies in the present case. 7. Order dated 30/03/2015 of this Bench is subsumed in the appellate order of the Apex Court dated 05/05/2015 and therefore, this Court cannot at this stage amend/modify/clarify the order in any manner as that order has attained finality.

Final Decision: All the applications [except I.A.No.IV/2015], are dismissed with costs, as these applications filed by the applicants including the State, are not only an abuse of the process of this Court but contrary to the principle of finality of litigation and have taken up considerable time of this Court.