- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI R. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, COUNCILOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 R/AT WARD NO.15, CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 577 213. 2. SRI B. HARISH S/O. B. RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS COUNCILOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 R/AT WARD NO.15, CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 577 213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI A. MOHAMAD TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE - 577 005. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ALSO RETURNING OFFICER DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE - 577 005. 4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAGERI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 5. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ANNIGERI, ANNIGERI TALUK, DHARWARD DISTRICT - 582 201 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 6. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 571 604 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 7. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 571 604 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 8. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL H.D. KOTE, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 125 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 9. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOSADURGA, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 10. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL K.R. NAGAR, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 11. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KUSHTAGI, KUSHTAGI TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT - 583 277 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2025 IN WP NO.21737/2024 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) The challenge in the original petition at the instance of the appellants was to the allocation of reserved seats for the posts of the President and Vice-President of the Channagiri Municipal Council. 2. Learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief and dismissed the petition by observing inter alia that two Co-ordinate Benches of this court had already upheld the contention of the State regarding reservation to the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and therefore, it would not possible to take a different view. 3. Learned advocate Mr. A. Mohamad Tahir for the appellants sought to submit that, the reservations stand in the breach of statutory provisions. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 4. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 appearing through learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish is that all issues relating to the validity of the election could be examined only in the election petition as provided under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1965. 5. Rule 15 reads as under, "Election Petition.- (1) The validity of the election of the President or the Vice-President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area within which the election has been or should have been held, within seven days from the date of declaration of the election by any candidate at such election or by three or more Councillors joined together as petitioners. (2) Every petition under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. (3) The petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition where the petitioner in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, the returned candidate. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 (4) A petition under sub-rule (1),- (a) shall contain a concise statement of material on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings; (c) any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. (5) The petitioner may claim any of the following declarations,- (a) that the election of the returned candidate is void; (b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected." 5.1 It would be seen from the above Rule that the validity of election of a President or a Vice-President may be called in question by a petition presented to the District Judge within seven days from the date of declaration of the election by any candidate. There is a remedy of filing of election petition available to the appellants. 5.2 The issue of illegality or otherwise of the reservations provided for the posts of the Presidents and Vice-Presidents would indeed fall within the purview of the election petition contemplated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 under Rule 15 as above, since the issue pertains to the validity of election of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be. 5.3 It is trite principle that when a remedy in the nature of election petition is available, the court would not exercise its jurisdiction and the remedy for the aggrieved appellants is only to file election petition. This is more particularly, in view of that the election process has already been commenced. 5.4 From the Interim Application No.3 of 2025 which is for production of additional documents filed by the appellants, it is reflected that the office of the Tahsildar, Channagiri Taluka, Channagiri has already issued election notification dated 17.02.2025 notifying the election schedule which is as under, "Election Date: 28.02.2025 Location/Place: Municipal Council Hall, Channagiri ELECTION SCHEDULE 1 Nomination Paper Submission Date and Period Date: 28.02.2025, from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM 2 Nomination Paper Verification Date: 28.02.2025, Friday, at 1:00 PM 3 Withdrawal of Candidature Period Date: 28.02.2025, Friday, afternoon Immediately after the nomination paper verification is completed on 28.02.2025, Friday, within 10 minutes 4 Election Time if Required If an election is necessary, it will take place promptly after the withdrawal period." - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8814-DB WA No. 253 of 2025 5.5 As per the above schedule, the filing of nomination papers has began today, in other words, the election process is underway for the posts in question. When the election process is underway as stated above, the only remedy available to the appellants is to file election petition after the declaration of result as contemplated under Rule 15 of the 1965 Rules. 6. In the aforesaid view, leaving it open for the appellants to avail such remedy, if advised. 7. Without going into any aspects of the merits of the case of the appellants, the present appeal is not entertained and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3