Sri H K Halesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri H K Halesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE_..___

DATED THIS THE 24" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019"'--l,'j~f*--._

BEFORE

THE l~iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQ!-<~B.._4HIi\iCliVIG:E,i§!f"   

WRIT PETITION Nos.277s2-277s5/2910 (l1.'a?.<-_:El_'.l:EVlb  

BETWEEN:

I.

,7s...*i

Sri H.K. Haiesh, 

S/o Hanumanthappa, V '_ 

Aged about 43 years,  I   }    _
Councillor, Town lVlunicipal"Cou'nc.?l,   __ 
Harapanahalli, Day/_angere"'IDli'stri'ct,]._ ' 
Sri T. Venkatesh,?1;_,__:'_ ''    

Aged about 40.:-years', .  '  
Councill_o_r_, To._w'n '§'.S'_!_tJVl'll\'Z!f['llI?Il "Cou.nci_l,3'
Harapainahaili,f.Dav3a4ngere, "District.

Sri M.v.'--Anjinappa};'i.,V'  
Aged about,_3I7Vyé'a_rs,. = 
Counci_llor, Toy_vrIwM,uni'cipal Council,
Harapaniahalli, Davangere District.

._  Bas,a--,oj)a,,
 ___A"ged' avbogutl 45 yea rs,
C_oi:-ncill'o«r,'-.T0w'n Municipal Council,

HaraVpana.h'ai.ii,i Davangere District.

_ *._Smt. Swetha,
" ._W/0. Kotresh,

  '_Ag_ed"_iabout 30 years,

  Couricilior, Town Municipal Council,
  A Hfarapanahalli, Davangere Qistrict.

 Petitioners
(By Sri V.R. Sarathy, Advocate for
M/s. Ravivarma Kumar Associates)



AND:

 comes' --..under

The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
M.S. Building, Bangalore - 560 001.

The Director,

Department of Municipal Administration,
Vishveshwaraya Towers,  _
Vidhana Veedhi, 7 "
Bangalore - 560 001.

The Deputy Commissioner,  
Davangere District,  '
Davangere.

The Chief Officer,

Town Municipal Council,
Harapanahalli,   V
Davangere Di.stri_c'i:. '

Sri Ka_runa_ka'ra Raddy',  _
MLA, l?i.arapa'naha'I"l~i.garndﬁ  _
Revenu'e.,V_M'iniste.r,'  '- _ l' __  
Government of Ka_rnat'ak.a',
Vidha-na Soud.ha,'Bangalore.

 Respondents

~ may Sri R. loévdas, AGA for R--1 to R-3, S_ri"'A.R. Desai, Advocate for R4, ,'fC,handramohan, Advocate for R~5) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constityution of India praying to call for entire records of ""--C.disq'uali,ficatinn case culminating in passing the order dated

-w..3D;8.,201-Q by the R3 holding that the complaint given by the R4 ._ g the purview of Section 16(i)(K) and '_'~..,su«bse'quent order dated 31.8.2010 rejecting the interlocutory ' a'ppl,i_c.ation filed by the petitioners; and etc. These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this Hjday, the Court made the following:

the QRDER The petitioners are all eiected as the members of.it'liej'<To:ziin Municipal Council, lr-iarapanahalii. Alieging that committed acts of'nepotism, etc. in san_ctio.ning .th'e"1'S9<o.of'_loans V' earmarked for the persons beiongingtto Scheduied Tribe, the respondeniiicimé fileduthe eoriipiarini with? the respondent No.3 seeifing 'd.iVsqu.alifi--c,a,tioh. The respondent No.3 issued the"show..,r,o the petitioners and passed the order,V__dated"'t9{;::1 holding that the petitioners the Councillors of the said was passed without affording the to the petitioners, the petitioners This Court, by its order, dated ~~..V(Vi:€\vvnne::<ure--M) quashed the Deputy and remanded the matter to him for procleedinglVV'atr_estiV~l.,,"i'n accordance with law. The operative It DVo.rtionsl"of the said order are extracted hereinbelow:

A. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the pe.rltioners points out that even if the allegations made against these Councilors/petitioners are taken their face value, they do not amount to any misconduct which could entail such an action under ﬁéii.

Section 16(1)(k) of the Act. I do not propose to express any opinion on this aspect as it is open for the petitioners to take up this contention before Deputy Commissioner by way of ado?ition.ai-.:

objections. If such an objection is taken, U'?.¢'V'i'iD..eputyC.4_ Commissioner shall first exaniin'e'~ allegations come within the purview c;if'the 1.1' contained under Section 16('1-)__(k) o"f._the Act';'u'i' the 3 Deputy Commissioner ﬁnds tha:ti»the ailegationsgiare of such nature as to .~w.arranit""ai5§i'0'I5'$.if? <3;CC0'Fd3i7Ce with law, then he proi;fee'd--VfVto.é't conduct an enquiry by providing an the'V"parties to lead evidence thereafter _._speaking order in the n7atfféI':_'«..V .-

6. --.theiigi':-t:ﬁof»'the'"aboye, these writ petitions are alioiwtedy --- Annexure--A is set aside, rnatteii is" remitted to the Deputy Cofmmiissio_ner direction to proceed afresh in accordanceiwith law and in the light of the directions All other contentions of the parties are' open. "

Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued notice, to v;i'hic'hV'thetpetitioners filed an elaborate repiy particutarly raising .,g.round that the aiiegation Eevelled against the petitioners VCCC"--"Ca'nnot be brought within the ambit of Section 16(1)(k) of the ﬁﬁg;

5 Karnataka Municipaiities Act, 1964 ('the said Act' for short). The Deputy Commissioner, by his order, dated 30.8.2010 overruied the objections of the petitioners and held that the case..Vatt_racts the provisions of Section 16(1)(k) of the said Act matter to 31.8.2010 for the evidence of the.--Detition'ers;-AV 31.8.2010 the petitioners did not come to.;teeidto»ieede.,,0teei- evidence. But on the other handtih-ave fiiedAthree'v'a'p&pii_cVati_ons

i) seeking the presence of the fourth0"'resp.onden*'c._VChiefViafficer for cross--examination, ii) for'*thze* _irr¥._pie:adme'nf'~of Sri Karunakara Reddy, MLA and Revenue Ministetr No.5 herein); and iii) adjourning 3_the:1lca.se,::b.y 1:1. 5.

3. The-.D'e.puty heid that there is no need to cross--exa_m_ine the_V'Chief A0ffi't§er perhaps, because he was not ii,._i'r;Ci"'!iA.ef. 'H'e""has aiso disaiiowed the petitioners' seco_n'd_ap.p:I'i::ation:for impieading Sri Karunakara Reddy and 0 "»._..'their third av.51pi:i"t.:a;tion for adjournment by two weeks. The

-4.?/»-D_éVl3'~l1tY Coinrriissioner posted the matter for orders on the basis of "L"0:.'5_e3w.i:'ae'.(";A=_ards and on merits by 3.9.2010. At that juncture, the

-peltitioiners have approached this Court by fiiing these writ 00' t..p_je'titions.

A r.

4. Sri V.R. Sarathy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner's order, dated 30.8.2010 is not a speaking order. According to him, the order_?o.,n'i.the preliminary objections ought to have been a speaki;ﬁg"0'rVd.er per this Court's order, dated 2.2.2010passedin"W:.'_P:.l\i:os'.;LOS--"~ 112/10. He further submits that the C:h4ief.:-Off3ce'r.does'not.,____ha:;_e the locus standi to file the Compla.int..,._V 0' 0 if 1 3 0

5. Sri Sarathy submits leveiled against the petitioners cannotifibey the ambit of the Section £6(1)(k) of the said:,Act._ [Hesuybrriitsyithaft the petitioners have not tr.-§.'l<'e'nV _ind3fyidu'al.V,:'.decision in sanctioning the loans. The decisionx'-is0collectiy'~e_ly_0lt'a.i§en,in the form of the resolution by the entire._,Coun'cilr.,V 'T.he0"foVu'rth respondent Chief Officer, for :.ijne><plicabiereasons, hassingled out only the petitioners leaving out of the Council. He prays for the 00i'idi....iduashirig:'er tvhefo-prdizers, dated 30.8.2010 and 31.8.2010.

6. Heysubmits that no reasons whatsoever are assigned rejecting the three applications and more particularly the . 'V:."lapplication for impleading Sri Karunakara Reddy. 55%;

7. Sri R. Devdas, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submiftsithat the petitioners have only been filing one after..~«~~the.qothéeré application to stall the proceedings before__i'the:.A_:'D.eput"y_gVVVi"~ Commissioner. On every objection cannot be a speaking order, so cont_endsi'Sri"R. C' He. «alsoe brings to my notice the order,""'i'd:Va'ted Viipiaissed in W.P.Nos.108-112/2010 to iit'h.1e:"a-:..rectioifgiven to the Deputy Commissioner to on the main matter. The same" that there has to be a speaking or_d"e.rV'o'r*.-- every 'obj.ect'i.on' or application;., which the petitioners-_fiieV. the allegations suffered by the petitioners__"attra"ct_tiheiibprovisions contained in Section ;s(1)(i<),_igr" the Act. submits that the Chief Officer of the the Principal Executive Officer. It is he whoi"'note._s« dVov§i_n___a'l~l.;"t'he proceedings. He has the competence to lodge thié"coi°npl'a'i'Vnt with the Deputy Commissioner. K. Chanciramohan, the learned counsel for the r'es1pondent No.5 submits that the allegations made against the resp'ohdent No.5 are absoiutely fallacious. He further submits 52$!-i.

that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the issues falling for consideration b_efor.e"~the Deputy Commissioner.

9. Whether the petitioners have c'ong1_r'nitt;eclAlV:"a_npact of nepotism is more a question of fact than oflaw. Siuch an cannot be decided based only'*v..si'§'riig the '--.affiida;viVt'sTforif oralf' submissions. Therefore l:l'i:'-..j_ petiti'or.i'ersif"i»eggntehtiton"1that the allegations levelled against tl"lé.'._r"i: section 16(1)(k) of the said Act cann~o;t'g:-he manner and without the enqt::1i'rV'3';":s_'i«.V i L if

10. Furtherxiwf"oi:'iierrnertihersilof the Council are also guilty of committingﬂlthevvl as is alleged by the petitioners,"itor.is open..VtVo1the petitioners to file complaints against other :rT1e:;r'nbie~Ars--.of~.Vthe Council. But on the ground that the simillatliﬂgplacedvi.__Co'u'ncillors are not facing the disqualification proceedirigs,"----Vithegproceedings against the petitioners cannot be .:'lr;io'sedi.

'~_AA1It_..ff;The order sheet produced shows -that several . 'V:s"lo--p:port£inities were indeed afforded to the petitioners. The £3?-it Hi

12. The presence of Sri Karunakara Reddy, MLA and Revenue Minister is not necessary for the adjudication of the issues involved in the proceedings before the_."~.[f)E,'bpi_lxty Commissioner. Therefore, this Court Commissioner's order rejecting the impl_e.a.ding a;iVpli'ca'tioVn'.

13. Now, 1 am left with the last Vjpart--._of the."_ij0rde'r,n détédi--.. 31.8.2010 turning down the petViVt'ioners"'*._reqi.i.=esf_ the' adjournment of the case.by.__1S_«"Vd'ays._ :"i*he aflficiavit filed in support of the LA. for adjoi-uirnlment contain the sufficient cause for 'seejking:__an .a.~djo«urn.rn.e_n_tVf'for a period of 15 days. Thec.'VVal'so"itcvv_as the iiielputy Commissioner to turn down their adjournment. He would have adjournedthe rnatter~ by days. Therefore, that part of the ..ord'erAtu:rnin.gv. down t'hAe"'"petitioners' request for adjournment is ciu'é*:=.°§.h'c-;e§l;" -- C...i'=:. V

14." Yétanother reason for quashing that part of the order refusi'ngi..theV'adjournment is that the fourth respondent's learned advo1:ate°'has not said that he has no evidence. The matter therefore cannot be posted for orders without giving one more ooportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence. The ﬂﬁii.

ll outcome of the proceedings may visit the petitioners with serious consequences. It is necessary that they are to be given one more opportunity to adduce their evidence. At the same time, it is also the Court's anxiety that the petitioners shou:ldy4'_:'i.not protract the proceedings. The ends of justice wouid:'_:"b'e'«bmeti' _ my directing the petitioners and/or their iearne'd~»advo'cates to appear before the beputy Commissioner waiting for any notice from the.»i'D.eputygCommE.ss'iQne_r. petitioners are directed to co~ope¥rate yvithﬁntheyfg Deputy Commissioner in the speedy'.dispiosa'l~-.._"oi'Kthe proceedings. Further, the Deputy C_ommiys.sio_ri-er'l--is:.directe:d._'~t'o conclude the enquiry and'...Apas's .an='appro4p'rig:a'te'order thereon in accordance "

with law and astexpVed'itioVu.si»y:'a»s'possible and in any case within a4_nV.outer,.ii}miti'of threeimonths from today. i .lV'Th_ese«..Apeititions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs; " it say;

Iuage '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court