Back
Karnataka High Court
IREPPA THIRAKAPPA SHOURADHA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI - Respondent
Decided On : 01-17-05
W.P. : 890 of 2005
ELECTION LAW
Disqualification of members of town Municipal Council - Whip - Disobedience of - Whip issued against President in clear terms - Hence, it cannot be said that, there is no specific direction in the Whip - Language of whip - Whip was in English - Members pleaded that, they don t know the language - The very fact that, they have signed the Vakalathnama and the Affidavit in English belies their claim - Order of disqualification proper.
[V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The whip clearly states "I do hereby issue this whip of no confidence motion of Sri. R.G. Sindhanur, our party nominee for the President/Vice President T.M.C. Savanur Taluk Panchayat/CMC/Town Zilla Panchayat Savanur in the forthcoming Elections. If you go against the whip issued by the prescribed authority or if you avoid to receive the whip, action will be taken against you under the provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act of 1987 and subsequent Amendments in 1995". In view of this clear whip, it cannot be said that there is no specific direction in the whip. Therefore, the decision present into service will not support the case of the petitioners and the ground urged is rejected. The case sought to be made before the 2nd respondent was that the petitioners do not know English. The 2nd respondent held that no evidence or proof is produced in this regard. But, this Court cannot believe or accept that petitioners do not know English. The reason is, they have signed the Vakalathnama in English. Even the Affidavit verifying the writ petitions is signed in English by the 2nd petitioner. Even assuming that petitioners do not know English, being elected members of the Town Municipal Council, they cannot plead such innocence about the language. When a person receives a documents in a language not known to him, certainly he will ascertain and know the contents of the document from a person knowing the language contained in the document. Therefore, pleading such unwanted or technical defects will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have disobeyed the whip, rightly, the 2nd respondent has disqualified their membership. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
Cases Referred: 2000(3) Kar. L.J 56: ILR 2000 Kar 1646: AIR 2000 Kant 247 ; 2003(3) KCCR Sh. N. 205.
Disqualification of members
KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 - Disqualification of members of town Municipal Council - Whip - Disobedience of - Whip issued against president in clear terms - Hence, it cannot be said that, there is no specific direction in the Whip - Language of whip - Whip was in English - Members pleaded that, they don t know the language - The very fact that, they have signed the Vakalathnama and the Affidavit in English belies their claim - Order of disqualification proper.
[V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The whip clearly states "I do hereby issue this whip of no confidence motion of Sri. R.G. Sindhanur, our party nominee for the President/Vice President T.M.C. Savanur Taluk Panchayat/CMC/Town Zilla Panchayat Savanur in the forthcoming Elections. If you go against the whip issued by the prescribed authority or if you avoid to receive the whip, action will be taken against you under the provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act of 1987 and subsequent Amendments in 1995". In view of this clear whip, it cannot be said that there is no specific direction in the whip. Therefore, the decision present into service will not support the case of the petitioners and the ground urged is rejected. The case sought to be made before the 2nd respondent was that the petitioners do not know English. The 2nd respondent held that no evidence or proof is produced in this regard. But, this Court cannot believe or accept that petitioners do not know English. The reason is, they have signed the Vakalathnama in English. Even the Affidavit verifying the writ petitions is signed in English by the 2nd petitioner. Even assuming that petitioners do not know English, being elected members of the Town Municipal Council, they cannot plead such innocence about the language. When a person receives a documents in a language not known to him, certainly he will ascertain and know the contents of the document from a person knowing the language contained in the document. Therefore, pleading such unwanted or technical defects will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have disobeyed the whip, rightly, the 2nd respondent has disqualified their membership. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
Cases Referred: Not Relied:2000(3) Kar. L.J 56: ILR 2000 Kar 1646: AIR 2000 Kant 247; 2003(3) KCCR Sh. N. 205.
Issue as to language
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Appendix - H, Form 19 - Issue as to language - Disqualification proceedings - Whip issued to members of Municipal Council in English - Members contended that, they don t know the language - But, they have signed the Vakalathnama and supporting affidavit in English - Held, they cannot plead such innocence. See, Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection ) Act, 1987 - Section 3(1)(b).
Disqualification
KARNATAKA LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PROHIBITION OF DEFECTION ) ACT, 1987 - Section 3(1)(b) - Disqualification of members of town Municipal Council - Whip - Disobedience of - Whip issued against President in clear terms - Hence, it cannot be said that, there is no specific direction in the Whip - Language of whip - Whip was in English - Members pleaded that, they don t know the language - The very fact that, they have signed the Vakalathnama and the Affidavit in English belies their claim - Order of disqualification proper.
[V. Gopala Gowda, J]: The whip clearly states "I do hereby issue this whip of no confidence motion of Sri. R.G. Sindhanur, our party nominee for the President/Vice President T.M.C. Savanur Taluk Panchayat/CMC/Town Zilla Panchayat Savanur in the forthcoming Elections. If you go against the whip issued by the prescribed authority or if you avoid to receive the whip, action will be taken against you under the provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act of 1987 and subsequent Amendments in 1995". In view of this clear whip, it cannot be said that there is no specific direction in the whip. Therefore, the decision present into service will not support the case of the petitioners and the ground urged is rejected. The case sought to be made before the 2nd respondent was that the petitioners do not know English. The 2nd respondent held that no evidence or proof is produced in this regard. But, this Court cannot believe or accept that petitioners do not know English. The reason is, they have signed the Vakalathnama in English. Even the Affidavit verifying the writ petitions is signed in English by the 2nd petitioner. Even assuming that petitioners do not know English, being elected members of the Town Municipal Council, they cannot plead such innocence about the language. When a person receives a documents in a language not known to him, certainly he will ascertain and know the contents of the document from a person knowing the language contained in the document. Therefore, pleading such unwanted or technical defects will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have disobeyed the whip, rightly, the 2nd respondent has disqualified their membership. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance.
Cases Referred: 2000(3) Kar. L.J 56: ILR 2000 Kar 1646: AIR 2000 Kant 247; 2003(3) KCCR Sh. N. 205.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are the elected members of Town Municipal Council, savanur. They are aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-F, dated 30-12-2004 passed by the first respondent disqualifying their membership. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners for having disobeyed the whip of no-confidence motion against the President of the Town Municipal Council issued as per Annexures-B, B1 and B2.
( 2 ) THE impugned order is attacked on the ground that there is no specific direction in the whip issued as required under Section 3 (l) (b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987. Consequently, there is no whip in the eye of law. In the absence of a valid whip, the impugned order is bad in law. The decisions in viswanath Kappathanavar v Channu Patil and Shobha v State Election commission , are pressed into service.
( 3 ) THE ground of attack is wholly untenable. The whip clearly states"i do hereby issue this whip of no confidence motion of Sri R. G. Sindhanur, our party nominee for the President/vice-President, T. M. C. , savanur Taluk Panchayat/cmc/town Zilla Panchayat, Savanur in the forthcoming Elections. If you go against the whip issued by the prescribed authority or if you avoid to receive the whip, action will be taken against you under the provisions of the Karnataka Local authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act of 1987 and subsequent amendments in 1995". In view of this clear whip, it cannot be said that there is no specific direction in the whip. Therefore, the decisions pressed into service will not support the case of the petitioners and the ground urged is rejected.
( 4 ) THE case sought to be made out before the 2nd respondent was that the petitioners do not know English. The 2nd respondent held that no evidence or proof is produced in this regard. But, this Court cannot believe or accept that petitioners do not know English. The reason is, they have signed the Vakalathnama in English. Even the Affidavit verifying the writ petitions is signed in English by the 2nd petitioner. Even assuming that petitioners do not know English, being elected members of the Town Municipal Council, they cannot plead such innocence about the language. When a person receives a document in a language not known to him, certainly he will ascertain and know the contents of the document from a person knowing the language contained in the document. Therefore, pleading such unwanted or technical defects will not come to the rescue of the petitioners.
( 5 ) SINCE the petitioners have disobeyed the whip, rightly the 2nd respondent has disqualified their membership. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. They have to blame themselves for their conduct for having not honoured the whip issued by the President of the party to which they belong to.
( 6 ) THE first respondent after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and perusing the undisputed material evidence placed on record has recorded the finding of fact holding that the petitioners have disobeyed the whip after rightly rejecting their plea, which finding of fact cannot be annuled by this Court in exercise of its power, as this court is accepting the same as the same is based on material facts and evidence on record. For the foregoing reasons the legal contentions urged by the learned Senior Counsel with reference to the cases referred to supra relied upon by him are wholly untenable in law and they do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners, hence they are misplaced and cannot be accepted by this Court.
( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
--- *** ---
.
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
