AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After hearing the learned advocate appearing for the appellant, the application seeking leave to appeal is allowed.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Hon''ble Single Judge dated August 29, 2016, in Writ Petition No.41101 of 2016.
The respondent No.12 herein was the petitioner in the writ petition, which was filed for quashing the impugned notification bearing No.UDD 25 MLR 2016(2), Bengaluru, dated February 24, 2016, issued by respondent No.1 insofar as it relates to making reservation for the post of President and Vice President of the respondent No.4 Municipality at serial No.9 vide Annexure-A in the writ petition and to direct the respondents to re-do the list at serial Nos.7, 9, 19, 35, 50, 51, 62 and 111 and re-allot the post of either the President or the Vice President to the Scheduled Caste (Woman) Category at the respondent - Municipality.
We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant so, also, the learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.12. We have, also, heard Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate representing the State.
We have perused the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge.
The grievance of the appellant herein is that the Hon''ble Single Judge was not right in issuing a direction to the respondents to reserve the seat of the President or the Vice President in favour of the Scheduled Caste (Woman) candidate and for re-issuing the notification.
Perusing the order passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, we are convinced that giving such direction to the respondent - authorities for reserving the seat of the President or the Vice President in favour of the Scheduled Caste (Woman) candidate, is not within the domain of the Court and it is for the concerned authorities to take a decision in the matter and to issue the notification in accordance with law.
Therefore, to that extent, the writ appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed and the direction of the Hon''ble Single Judge to that extent is hereby set aside.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, accordingly, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.