AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—These petitions had been listed today in the morning session, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had been notified, they have been served and they have appeared before this Court. Keeping in view the nature of the proceedings and since the matter relates to the conduct of elections to the urban local bodies, the petition itself is taken up for consideration as urgency is involved. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the notification dated 07.02.2013 by which the reservations have been made in respect of the elections to the urban local bodies.
Learned senior counsel while assailing the said notification would point out that the reservation as made in the year 2007 as at Annexure-A has been reflected in the present notification as well. It is therefore contended that the mandate for rotating the posts for the purpose of reservation has not been followed and the very same reservation has been adopted for the present elections which would defeat the right of the electorate as well as the contesting candidates to choose appropriate persons. If there was proper rotation, the persons other than to whom the reservation has been made, would not have been entitled to contest and the electorate would have been in a position to elect such persons. In that regard, the learned senior counsel would also refer to the proceedings which had preceded the issue of notification including the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court wherein the time schedule had been fixed to the Government to furnish the reservation list to the Election Commission. Referring to the same, the learned senior counsel would point out that presently the issue is with regard to the manner in which the reservation is to be provided and in that regard both the State Government as well as the Election Commission which are the Constitutional authorities are required to follow the mandate of the Constitution. The learned senior counsel would point out that the reservation and rotation of seats is provided for in Article 243T of the Constitution. It is therefore contended that even if the State Government had not furnished the list to the Election Commission, the Election Commission on its own should have rotated the reservation and appropriate notification could have been issued.
Learned senior counsel would also contend that presently it is not in dispute that the reservation list has been forwarded by the State Government to the Election Commission on 14.02.2013 and since the Calendar of Events would come into force only from 16.02.2013, even at this juncture, it would be open for the Election Commission to adopt the reservation list which has been sent by the State Government to the State Election Commission which would serve the ends of justice and therefore, the same is to be adopted. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel that such acceptance of the list by the State Election Commission would not violate the orders of the Hon''ble Supreme Court since the time frame indicated therein was for the Government to send the list. In other respects, it had been left open to the State Election Commission to proceed in the matter and therefore, even at this juncture, the acceptance of the list by the State Election Commission would not violate the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In that view, it is contended that the prayer made in the instant petition requires to be considered inasmuch as the rights of the parties would otherwise get effected and the parties would loose the chance of contesting the election. Moreover, the electorate would not have the opportunity of choosing the right candidate. The said power of the State Election Commission is traced to Article 243K of the Constitution.
Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the second respondent has merely abided the direction issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is his case that any intervention at this stage by this Court would not only amount to altering the directions which had been issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, but would also amount to delaying the election process. Therefore, the order as passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 3909-10/2013 is clear that a direction has been issued to the State Election Commission by filing the time schedule which is necessary to be followed by it. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in similar set of circumstance, i.e., on the same contentions which have been urged in the instant petition, another petitioner had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 89/2013. Though the Hon''ble Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of the petition, it has been observed in the order that withdrawal has been reluctantly permitted and further directions have been issued to proceed with the election and to fulfill the mandate of the Constitution.
Learned Additional Advocate General would point out that presently the list providing for reservation has been furnished to the State Election Commission and it was for the State Election Commission to act upon the same and at this juncture, the State Government has no role to play in the manner of conducting of the elections.
Though the learned counsel by referring to the provisions of Article 243K and T of the Constitution has pointed out the role of the State Election Commission and the powers that could be exercised with regard to the conduct of elections including the reservations that could have been made by the State Election Commission, I am not in a position to take into consideration the submissions for the purpose of grant of relief which has been sought in the instant petitions. I am of the said opinion for the reason that the Hon''ble Supreme Court was already seized of the matter and while disposing of the Special Leave to Appeal No. 3909-10/2013 has observed as follows:
In view of these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the State Election Commission is within its right to proceed with the Elections within the time frame as required by the Constitution and the State enactments. It will have to proceed on the basis of the existing electoral rolls. As far as the rotation of the seats meant for the reserved categories is concerned, the State Government should furnish its proposal to the State Election Commission on or before the 4th February, 2013. In the event, the State Government does not furnish the information by that date, it would be open to the State Election Commission to proceed on the basis of the reservation of seats as are presently existing.
A perusal of the said order would indicate that the Hon''ble Supreme Court had directed that the State Government should furnish the reservation list to the State Election Commission on or before the 4th February 2013. No doubt as contended by the learned senior counsel, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has thereafter left it open to the State Election Commission to proceed on the basis of the reservation of the seats which are presently existing and it has not directed that it should be done only in that manner. It is in that circumstance, the State Election Commission is now contending before this Court that the order was accordingly passed on 05.02.2013 adopting the existing list. The reservation list was ultimately submitted by the Government only on 14.02.2013 and at this juncture, they would not be in a position to alter the reservations which have already been notified. In this regard, what is also necessary to be noticed is that, in the Writ Petition bearing No. 89/2013 similar prayers, as that has been made in the instant petition, was made before the Hon''ble Supreme Court itself by the petitioner therein, more particularly with reference to the Article 243T of the Constitution which has now been presented before this Court by the learned senior counsel. Notwithstanding such contention, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the said petition to grant the relief sought for therein and while reluctantantly permitting withdrawal, it has observed that since the petition is being withdrawn, the State Election Commission would proceed to complete the election process. I have specifically referred to this aspect of the matter since in the absence of the State Government submitting the list even as on 13.02.2013 when that petition was disposed of and the State Election Commission having the authority to publish the rotation list, having chosen to pass the order dated 05.02.2013 adopting the earlier list, it would have been open for the Hon''ble Supreme Court itself at that juncture to direct the State Election Commission to exercise the power under Article 243T of the Constitution. Since the Hon''ble Supreme Court has not passed any orders in that regard and has once again allowed the State Election Commission to proceed in the manner as it was, it would not be open for this Court at this juncture to direct the State Election Commission to accept the list submitted by the Government as late as on 14.02.2013 and modify the reservation list as it would affect the conduct of elections and is likely to delay the process of election. Further any directions issued by this Court would amount to altering the directions which has been granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court which is against judicial discipline. If at all any of the parties have any grievance, they can only approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court in that regard. It would accordingly not be open for this Court to entertain the petition.
For the above stated multifarious reasons, I am of the opinion that the instant petition cannot be entertained at this juncture. The same is accordingly disposed of. No costs.