Disqualification of a municipal council member for misconduct is upheld when proper procedures align with the principles of natural justice, even if jurisdictional authority contended loss liability.

ORAL ORDER

W.P.No.4409/2023 has been filed by the petitioner who is the Councillor / President of the Town Municipal Council, Arasikere, calling in question the validity of the order dated 10.02.2023 bearing No.ELECTION:CR:42/ 2021-2022 at Annexure-M whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified from his Membership in terms of Section 41 (1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act , 1964 ("the Act" for short) as well as fixing liability in terms of Section 308 of the Act.

W.P.No.15015/2023 has been filed by the Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha®, calling in question the validity of the order dated 10.02.2023 by the Regional Commissioner.

The challenge in the said writ petition is limited to the adverse observations/findings made in the impugned order effecting the rights of the petitioner in respect of the property in question.

2. Since both the writ petitions are filed challenging the same impugned order with identical factual matrix though with distinct reliefs, in order to avoid any contradiction, both the matters are taken up together and are disposed off by this common order.

3. The brief facts are narrated as made out in W.P.No.4409/2023. An extent of 20.9 x 26.70 sq. mtrs. of land is stated to be in possession of the respondent No.2 - City Municipality, Arasikere, till the completion of Arasikere Town drinking water project in terms of a resolution which further denotes that subsequent to completion of such project, the question of giving it for educational development activities could be considered by fixing upset price.

4. It is stated that the office bearers/ members of Nolamba Veerashaiva Sangha had made an application to hand over the land to the respondent No.3 ('Respondent No.3 - Sangha' for short) after completion of the project work in terms of the resolution. It is in such context that on 07.02.2022, large number of members of respondent No.3 - Sangha had gathered near the property demanding the respondent No.2 - City Municipality to remove the material stored in the pump house and seeking for handing over of that portion of the land to the respondent No.3 - Sangha. Eventually, it is stated that the petitioner along with other councilors had directed the employees of the Council viz., Watermen to shift the material from the pump-house and thereafter it is alleged that the pump- house was demolished.

5. It is stated that thereafter, the Commissioner of the City-Municipality, Arsikere Nagarasabhe had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E, to the effect that during the period he was on leave from 05.02.2022 to 07.02.2022, the petitioner / President had directed removal of material belonging to the Town Municipality without bringing such matter to his notice. Further, as the pump-house was demolished in an illegal manner subsequent to the removal of materials, the Municipal Commissioner had sought taking of necessary action against the petitioner/ President in light of his alleged facilitatory role.

6. The Municipal Commissioner had asserted that the land in which the pump-house was put up belonged to the City Municipality. It is asserted that the Petitioner /President of the Town Municipality ought to have discussed the matter with the Municipal Commissioner and ought to have placed the issue before the Municipal Council and without resorting to such action and without consulting the Commissioner or the officials, had unilaterally issued directions to the staff for removal of the material from the structure indirectly supporting the action of removal of the pump-house and thereby causing loss to the Municipality.