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

2012 Supreme(Kar) 174

High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
H.G. RAMESH & A.S. PACHHAPURE, JJ.
Lokamma & Others
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Raichur & Others
WRIT APPEAL NOS.50004-07 OF 2012 (LB-RES)
Decided on : 16-03-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:R.S. Siddapurkar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Manvendra Reddy, A.G.A., R3, Amaresh S. Roja, Advocates, R2 & R4, are served.

Headnote:KARNATAKA LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PROHIBITION OF DEFECTION) ACT, 1987 - Section 4(2) & Karnataka Municipalities Act (22 of 1964), Section 16(3): [H.G. Ramesh & A.S. Pachhapure, JJ] Maintainability of Writ Petition - Writ Petition filed against order of disqualification from being Councillors of Town Municipal Council - Right of appeal not provided under Karnataka Municipalities Act against order of disqualification passed under Section 4(2) of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act - Held, Writ petition maintainable.

Judgment

H.G. Ramesh, J.

1. By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the appeals are heard on merits and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. These writ appeals directed against the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants’ writ petitions in W.P.Nos.83665-83668/2011. The Appellants had filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner whereunder the appellants were disqualified from being Councillors of the Town Municipal Council, Devadurga. The said order was passed in exercise of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4(2)(iii) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (‘the Defection Act’).

3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants had an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 16(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (‘the Municipalities Act’).

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that no statutory appeal is provided under the Municipalities Act as against an order of disqualification passed under Section 4(2) of the Defection Act and hence the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

5. We have examined the relevant provisions under both the aforesaid Acts. Section 16 (3) of the Municipalities Act provides for an appeal only as against an order passed under section 16(2) of the said Act; it does not provide for an appeal against an order passed under Section 4(2) of the Defection Act. It is also relevant to notice that sub section 2 of section 4 of the Defection Act states that an order passed under the said sub section is final. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge had erred in law in holding that a statutory appeal was provided under Section 16(3) of the Municipalities Act, as against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed under Section 4(2) of the Defection Act.

6. In the result, we make the following order:

The order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 83665-83668/ 2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for consideration on merits. The writ appeals are according allowed.

In view of allowing of the writ appeals, no order is necessary on I.A.Nos.1 & 3/2012 and they stand disposed of accordingly.

Appeals Allowed.


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
whatsapp-icon Back to top