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

1999 Supreme(Kar) 212

P.VISHWANATHA SHETTY
AROKYA DAS @ DAS CHINNASAVARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, in this petition, are the councillors of the second respondent-municipal council.

( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 11th of january, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E , passed by the first respondent, wherein the first respondent has, in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 316 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), dissolved the second respondent-municipal council on various charges set out in the said order.

( 3 ) A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as under: (a) the election to the second respondent-municipal council was held on 7th of january, 1996 and thereafter, council was constituted by means of notification dated 12th of january, 1996. However, the election to the offices of the president and vice-president as required under Section 42 of the Act, was not held. Under those circumstances, one of the councillors of the second respondent-municipal council filed writ petition No. 7248 of 1996 before this court and in the said petition, this cou
















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