Karnataka High Court
WP/59156/2015 of SMT. M. USHARANI Vs STATE OF KARNATKA on 31 December 2015
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.59156-59157 OF 2015 (LB-ELE) Between: 1. Smt. M. Usharani, W/o Prabhakar, Aged about 40 years, President, Municipal Council, Bagepalli,
��
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.59156-59157 OF 2015 (LB-ELE)
Between:
1. Smt. M. Usharani, W/o Prabhakar, Aged about 40 years, President, Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballaput District, Pin – 561 207. W/o Prabhakar, Aged about 40 years, President, Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballaput District, Pin – 561 207.
2. Sri. Narasima Murthy. A, S/o Chinna Adimurthy, Aged about 36 years, Vice President, Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur District, Pin – 561 207. S/o Chinna Adimurthy, Aged about 36 years, Vice President, Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur District, Pin – 561 207.
…Petitioners
(By Shri Srinivasa Babu, Advocate)
��
And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, To Government, Department of Urban Development, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Secretary, To Government, Department of Urban Development, M.S.Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District, Chickkaballapur – 561 207. Chickballapur District, Chickkaballapur – 561 207.
3. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur District – 561 207. City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapur District – 561 207.
4. Smt. N. Mamatha, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. 5. Sri. Venugopal B.K Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
6. Smt. Channamma, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Muncipal Council, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Muncipal Council, ��
Bagepalli,
District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
7. Smt. Hussain. B Aged about Major, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
8. Sri. R. Gangaraju, Aged about Major, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
9. Sri. A. Nanjundappa, Aged about Major, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
10. Sri. A.Srinivas Appaiah Babu, Aged about Major Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Aged about Major Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
11. Sri. B.N.Srinivas, Aged about Major, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
��
12. Sri. Nallappa, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
13. Smt. Sarojamma, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
14. Sri. Arif B.H, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
15. Sri. Obalaraju.P, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207. Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
16. Sri. Mohammed Akram, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
17. Smt. Jyothi B.B.
Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, ��
District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
18. Smt. V. Vanaja, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
19. Sri. C.Zabiulla, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, Aged about Major, Councilor, City Municipal Council, Bagepalli, District Chikkaballapur – 561 207.
…Respondents
(By Shri H.Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for Respondent Nos.1 and 2)
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the meeting notice dated 21.12.2015 issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bagepalli produced at Annex-J.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing is considered for final disposal, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioners are said to be the elected councilors and they are the President and Vice-President of the Municipal Council of Bagepalli, respectively. It is their case that they have conducted the required number of meetings from time to time and have undertaken all developmental works in the area. The first petitioner admits that there was a circumstance where her mother-in-law was seriously ill and she had even expired later. It is on account of that circumstance, she was not able to attend to official work for sometime, which was even to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer and a request was made to carry on the routine work. There was however no impediment for developmental work in view of the absence of first petitioner from office. The second petitioner had discharged his duties efficiently and there was no room for any complaint. Therefore, there was no reason to move a ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioners. It transpires that sixteen councilors had submitted a representation expressing no confidence against the President and Vice-President and it is the case of the petitioners that it is done without any valid reason and with the malafide intention to harass the petitioners. The petitioners were further under the impression that in view of the Code of Conduct which was in force because of the elections to the Legislative Council, no such meetings could be called for. It however transpires that the Election Commission had clarified to the effect that there was no impediment to call for such meeting to consider a ‘no confidence motion’, and it would not be in violation of the Election Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the meeting has been fixed on 1.1.2016 to consider the ‘no confidence motion’. It is that which has prompted the petitioners to present these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the law contemplates a fifteen days’ clear notice in respect of ‘no confidence motion’ and the meeting to be held to consider the said ‘no confidence motion’. The present case does not fulfill the said criteria. It is on record that petitioner No.1 had been served
with a notice on 18.12.2015 and before expiry of fifteen days thereafter, the meeting is scheduled on 1.1.2016. It is only if the petitioners fail to call for a meeting, then it was possible for the councilors to make a representations to the Chief Executive Officer who would be empowered to call for such a meeting. This procedure has been short-circuited. In that, before the expiry of fifteen days period, the Chief Executive Officer has exercised his power, which is non-existent, in calling for a meeting to consider the motion. The sequence of events would indicate that fifteen days period had not elapsed, after service of notice on petitioner No.1. In which event, calling for a meeting by the Chief Executive Officer was premature and contrary to the legal provision and without authority of law. The petitioners can indeed exercise the option of calling for a meeting and if it is not done on or before 3.1.2016, it is only then that the Chief Executive Officer can exercise his power to call for a meeting. Therefore, leaving it open ��
to the petitioners to exercise that option, the petition is allowed.
Impugned orders at Annexures J and J1 are quashed.
4. The Government Advocate is permitted to file his Memo of Appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KM