KAHC010179592018_1

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 67
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

A batch of writ petitions was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, challenging various notifications issued by the State Government and other authorities relating to the reservation of wards for local body elections across multiple municipal corporations and councils in Karnataka. The petitioners sought quashing of the impugned notifications, alleging improper reservation of wards and seeking appropriate directions, such as reservation for General category in certain wards. The matters were heard together on 14 January 2019 by a single judge, but the extracted text does not include the court's reasoning or final decision.

Issue of Consideration

KAHC010179592018_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 82

W.P. No.44499/2018 c/w W.P. No.50796/2018 & Others

2019-01-14

S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

Abishek Marla M.J., K.N. Phaneendra, Vaishali Hegde, Vishwajith Shetty, Dinesh Rao, Prathima Honnapura, S. Rajashekar, Ashok Haranahalli, Manmohan P.N., Rajaram Sooryambail, Dhananjay Kumar, Udaya Prakash Muliya, Rahul S. Reddy, Anusuya Devi, Devi Prasad Shetty, S. Basavaraj, R. Subramanya, M. Ravindranath, D.C. Jagadeesh, Naveen J. N., Nagarajappa A., Mahesh R. Uppin

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

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to ward reservations

Remedy Sought

Quashing of notifications reserving wards and directions for proper reservation

Filing Reason

Alleged improper reservation of wards in municipal elections

Procedural History

Writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; matters heard together on 14 January 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision Application in Rent Control Eviction Suit — Tenant's Deposit of Arrears Within 90 Days of Suit Summons Held Sufficient Under Section 15(3) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The court found that the trial court...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order Setting Aside Anganwadi Supervisor Appointment for Ineligibility. Appointment Contrary to Advertisement and Government Resolution Amounts to Fraud on Public Under 2001 G.R.; No Relaxation Was Shown.