SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 60

A.M.AHMADI, K.RAMASWAMY, R.M.SAHAI
B. N. Shankarappa – Appellant
Versus
Uthanur Srinivas – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SUBBAIAH, K.V.MOHAN, M.VIRAPPA, NOBIN SINGH, P.Mahale, Ranji Thomas, SANTOSH HEGDE

Judgment

AHMADI, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 31st July, 1991, whereby the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal setting aside the decision of the learned single Judge and held, relying on the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2564 of 1987 decided on 28th May, 1991, at Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Zila parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (toes not confer any power in the Deputy Commissioner to change the headquarter of by Mandal. It is this view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that is put in issue in the present appeal. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal we may notice a few relevant facts.

3. The Act came into force w.e.f. 14th August, 1984. Thereafter on 16th January, 1986 a notification was issued by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power conferred by Section 4 (1) of the Act constituting a Mandal, named Mudiyannur Mandal, and located its headquarter at Mudiyannur. However, the Divisional Commissioner changed the headquarter to Uthanpur while exercising power under Section 4 (3) of the Act.










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top