WA/5384/2016 of SRI RAGHAVENDRA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 29 December 2016

JUDGMENT

Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing,by consent of learned counsel appearing for both theparties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

oD This intra-Court appeal is directed againstthe order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the learnedsingle Judge in W.P.No.108017/2016 whereunder writpetition filed by the appellants calling in question orderdated 16.09.2016 - Annexure-J passed by firstrespondent — Deputy Commissioner adjourning thematter for arguments on main application and listing the same to 23.09.2016, came to be confirmed bydismissing the writ petition. ©

3. Appellants and respondents came to be)elected as Councilors of the City Municipal Committee,Ranebennur in the elections held during the year 2013.second respondent herein filed a petition on 10.05.2016— Annexure-A under Sections 3(i)(a) and 3(ij(b) andSection|4OT the.KarnatakaLocalAuthorities(Prohibition and Defection) Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’)before the Chief Executive Officer —Commissioner, CityMunicipal Council, Ranebennur against appellantsherein alleging that appellants had violated the whipissued by the political party. Said complaint/petitionwas referred to Deputy Commissioner — first respondentherein on 12.05.2016 and it was registered as CMCElection/O7/2016-17. Additional Deputy Commissionermade a note on 23.05.2016 to the effect that complainthad to be submitted within 24 hours from the receipt ofsuch complaint, but same had been submitted to theDeputy Commissioner’s Office on 12.05.2016. On service of notice of said complaint, appellants hereinappeared and filed detailed statement of objections on11.08.2016 to the main petition. Two interlocutoryapplications came to be filed seeking rejection of thecomplaint on the ground that Chief Executive Officer,Ranebennur had not forwarded the complaint within 24hours to the Deputy Commissioner as required undersection 4(2) of the Act and such complaint is notmaintainable and also seeking production of originaldocument of service of whip. The grievance of theappellants before the learned Single Judge was thatcomplaint filed by respondent No.2 was itself notmaintainable and the order/endorsement made by theTahsildar as well as Addl.Deputy Commissioner on22.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 respectively itselfindicatedthat complaint is not maintainable and this issue hadnot been adjudicated by the first respondent - DeputyCommissioner. It was also contended that interlocutoryapplications which were filed by them for hearing theissue regarding maintainability of the complaint as wellas seeking production of document had not at all been

considered and without considering these applications,first respondent — adjudicating authority ought not tohavedirectedtheappellantshereinTOaddress.arguments on main application/petition by order dated16.09.2016 and as such assailing the same, writpetition came to be filed.

4Learned single Judge after considering therival contentions by order dated 08.12.2016 hasdismissed the petition on the ground that Section 4(2) ofthe Act mandates that when an application is filedunder Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition andDetection) Act, 1987, seeking disqualification same hasto be disposed of within 30 days and though six monthshave elapsed, no final decision had been taken and assuch directed the Deputy Commissioner to comply withthe mandate of law.

6. |Having heard the learned counsel appearingfor both sides and on perusal of the records we find thatthere 1S no error committed by the learned single Judgeor there has been any miscarriage in the administrationof justice, inasmuch as, the contentions which are nowraised by the appellants are undisputedly pleaded in thestatement of objections filed to the main petition orapplication before first respondent. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act clearly indicating thatwhen an application alleging anti-defection has beenfiled or alleging that there has been violation of the whipissued by a political party, same is required to bedisposed of within a period of 30 days, same cannot bebreached. On account of successive applications havingbeen filed by the appellants, matter could not reachfinality before the first respondent. It is because of thisprecise reason, learned single Judge has directed thefirstrespondent-DeputyCommissioner,Havery1,TOdispose of the petition/complaint as per mandate ofsection 4(2) of the Act. ©

T

TS|It is needless to state that first respondent —

Authority while adjudicating the complaint, would take note of not only the contention raised by the petitionersin their statement of objections but also note made bythe Tahsildar as well as Addl. Deputy Commissioner on22.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 - Annexure-J respectivelyand dispose of the petition/complaint on merits and inaccordance with law.

subject to above observation, writ appeal stands rejected Sd/-.

JUDGE

NM

Sd/-

JUDGE |