Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Karnataka Hears Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Ward Reservation Notifications Issued Under Urban Development Department. Petitioners Seek to Quash Notifications and Direct Reservation of Wards in Accordance with Earlier Draft Notifications.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
Admin
2026-09-15 09:50:52
  • 103
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010129732018_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 79

W.P. No.44499/2018 c/w W.P. No.50796/2018 and other writ petitions

2019-01-14

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Abishek Marla M.J., K.N. Phaneendra, Vaishali Hegde, Vishwajith Shetty, Dinesh Rao, Prathima Honnapura, S. Rajashekar

Mr. Ravindra Nayak

Karnataka State Election Commission, Mangalore City Corporation, State of Karnataka, Smt. Kavita Sanil, Sri Mahabala Marla

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 challenging notifications regarding reservation of wards in urban local body elections, alleging deviation from draft notifications.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notification dated 10.08.2018 and directions to reserve wards as per draft notification dated 26.06.2018, specifically for Ward No.19 in the lead petition.

Filing Reason

The impugned notification altered ward reservation from the draft, impacting petitioners' electoral opportunities.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
ward reservation urban local bodies election notification draft notification Mangalore City Corporation

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Compensation Enhanced Due to Inadequate Award. Claimant's delay in filing condoned as sufficient cause shown under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 2026-09-17 07:55:16
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Examines Legality of Sarpanch Reservation Process in Gram Panchayats Under Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. District-Level Reservation Overrides Tahsildar's Preliminary Decision; No Vested Right for Candidates Based on Earlier U... 2026-09-17 07:55:10
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition natural justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 Land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

Bombay High Court Dismisses MBBS Student's Writ Petition Seeking Fourth Attempt in Anatomy...

High Court of Bombay Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Tenancy Orders Under Bombay Tenancy ...

Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Absence of Pec...

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order Appointing Different Arbitrator Under Section 11 o...

Supreme Court Upholds Scrutiny Committee Invalidation of Scheduled Tribe Caste Claim but P...

Supreme Court Allows Homebuyers' Appeal and Waives Time Extension Charges Imposed by Devel...

Supreme Court Dismisses Insurer's and Claimant's Appeals in Motor Accident Death Compensat...

Lost Your Password?