All these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the notification dated 19.7.2018 issued by the 1st respondent/State Government insofar it relates to reservation of seats in respect of Mysuru and Shivamogga Municipal Corporation Wards.

I-FACTS OF THE CASES

2. The petitioners are claiming that they are eligible to contest to the elections for general, BCA, BCB and SC have filed the present writ petitions contending that the State Government issued draft notification on 19.06.2018 in respect of reservations under the provisions of Section 7 (2), (3), and (4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), reserving seats wardwise for 65 different wards for Mysuru City Corporation on the basis of population as per 2011 census calling for objections, if any, from the general public which shall be filed within seven days from the date of publication. Ghousianagar A Block Usmania Ward No.32 (Old Ward No.59) has been reserved for General category. Therefore, the petitioner - M Anwarji in W.P.No.32294/2018 did not file any objections since it was in accordance with law. But when the final notification was issued on 19.07.2018 reserving the said draft notification. It is further contended that Ward No.32 was continuously and repeatedly reserved for General Woman for last three elections i.e., 2007, 2013 and 2018 and the same is contrary to the roster policy. It is further contended that unless cycle of 10 categories is exhausted, there was no justification for repetition of any category permanently and granting of seven days time to file objections is also contrary to the dictum of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.31722/2018 contended that, petitioner belongs to BCA category and he is concerned with Gandhi Bazar East, Ward No.23 of 4th respondent- Corporation. The City Municipal Council, Shivamogga was upgraded/converted to City Corporation, Shivamogga by the Government Order dated 20.12.2013 as per Annexure-B and it is further contended that for the year 2001, Ward No.23 was reserved for General Woman for the year 2007, BCA for the year 2013 and General Women for the year 2018. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 had earlier reserved said post for General Category. However, after thought, for extraneous consideration, respondent No.1 re-fixed reservation to General Women category depriving the opportunity to the petitioner and similarly situated persons from contesting the reservation made and the same is contrary to the Government Notification issued from time to time.

4. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32779-80/2018 are from BCB and SC in respect of Ward Nos.55 and 65 of the 3rd respondent-Corporation have contended that in respect of Ward No.55 for year 2008, General Category was reserved and again for the year 2013 it was repeated for General and so also for the year 2018 as General. In respect of Ward No.65, it was reserved for General for the years 2008 and 2013 and BCA for the year 2018. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that inspite of objections filed pointing out that the notification issued is in violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act and that the ward reservation policy has not been implemented, the 1st respondent without considering the objection filed by the petitioners has issued final notification on 19.7.2018 reserving seats in respect of 65 Wards of the Corporation. Therefore, they are before this Court.

5. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.33436/2018 belongs to BCB category, Mysuru. It is stated that Ward No.64 was earlier reserved for BCA Women for the year 2001, General for the years 2008, 2013, and 2018. Though in the draft notification, it was notified as general, but in the Final Notification, it was reserved for BCA Women. Therefore, he contended that the Ward Reservation Policy is without any basis