Karnataka High Court
M A Ayyappan vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
1/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION No.47905/2016 c/w WRIT
PETITION No.47841/2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION No.47905/2016
BETWEEN:
M.A. AYYAPPAN
S/O S.N. ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O 33, FITTER BLOCK
CORAMANDEL POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-56001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563101.
3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563122.
4. SRI. B. MANIKYAM
S/O BASAPPA GOWDA .A
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016
M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
2/12
No.B/225, OFFICERS QUARTERS
BEML NAGAR, K.G.F. 563122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV., FOR C/R4
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. J.G. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.3.8.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNX-S.
WRIT PETITION No.47841/2016
BETWEEN:
M. A. AYYAPPAN
S/O S.N. ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O 33, FITTER BLOCK
CORAMANDEL POST
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.S. KANNUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-56001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563101.
3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563122.
4. SRI. B.P. RAMESH KUMAR
S/O PREMCHAND
Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016
M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
3/12
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. - 563122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV., FOR C/R4
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. J.G. CHANDRAMOHAN, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD.3.8.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-AB.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr. G.S. Kannur, Adv. for Petitioner Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for Mr. P.H. Virupakshaiah, Adv. for C/R4 Mr. S. Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP for R1 & R2 Mr. J.G. Chandramohan, Adv., for R3
1. The petitioner in these writ petitions has claimed the following reliefs:-
In W.P.No.47905/16
"(i) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-8-2016 in No.E.L.N.(2) CR 62/2015-16 passed by the Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-S, in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue any appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.4/12
the order dated 3-8-2016 in No.E.L.N. CR 62/2015-16 passed by the Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-T, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.
In W.P.No.47841/16
(i) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-8-2016 in No.E.L.N.(2) CR 63/2015-16 passed by the Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-AB, in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue any appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-8-2016 in No.E.L.N. CR 63/2015-16 passed by the Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-AE, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity".
2. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, for canceling the membership of the respondent No.4-Mr.B.Manikyam & Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 5/12 Mr.B.P.Ramesh Kumar respectively, from the Town Municipality of Robertsonpet, K.G.F. on the ground that the said respondents had not attended the 3 consecutive meetings in terms of Section 16(2)(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and had thus incurred the disqualification.
3. Upon rejection of the said application by the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner Mr.M.A.Ayyappan, has filed these two writ petitions before this Court.
4. On the last occasion, when both the matters were heard by this Court, the following order was passed by this Court on 29.11.2016;
"The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order, Annexure T dated 03/08/2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, has invoked the provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure for treating the service of Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.6/12
notices on the adult member of the family as not sufficient, without referring to the specific provisions contained in Section 252 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, which specifically provides in Section 261(1)(d)(ii) of the said Act that service on an adult member of the family is sufficient. He submits that since the notices have been served on the wife and mother of the Respondent, therefore, despite notice, since they have not attended the meetings for three months, they ought to have been declared as disqualified.
The learned counsel for the Respondent prays for some time to argue the case.
Put up on 06-12-2016".
5. Since a ground was raised about the validity of service of summons by Deputy Commissioner on the aforesaid respondent No.4s' family members namely, on the wife and mother of the Respondent No.4 was enough in terms of Section 262 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or not, the matter was kept pending for the Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 7/12 arguments from the side of the respondents who prayed for some time on that day.
6. The learned Senior counsel Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy appearing for Respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions has submitted that Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, empowers the Deputy Commissioner either to suo motu or on a report made to him and after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, shall declare the seat of the person concerned to have become vacant if any of the disqualification enumerated in Section 16 is incurred by the person concerned.
He has further submitted that the person aggrieved by such order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, may file an appeal within thirty days from the date of such decision to the State Government, if the person affected by the order was a Councilor of a City Municipal Council or to the Director of Municipal Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 8/12 Administration, if such person was a councilor of a Town Municipal Council.
He submitted that the aforesaid Respondents are Town Municipal Councilors and therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy, if he is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he may file an appeal before the State Government or to the Director of Municipal Administration. He also submitted that the petitioner is neither a Councilor nor the Town Municipal Councilor but appears to be only an Outsider and a citizen of the said area.
7. Upon the Court question to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a citizen of India and has brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner all the relevant facts, on the basis of which, the disqualification of the respondents- Mr.B.Manikyam & Mr.B.P.Ramesh Kumar was Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 9/12 established and the Deputy Commissioner has rejected his application under Section 16(2) of the Act wholly on the technical ground namely, the service of summons on the Respondent No.4's family member by the Deputy Commissioner had not been in accordance with the Order 5 Rule 15 of CPC, whereas, in view of the specific provisions of Section 262 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the service on any adult member of a family, male or female, is adequate and sufficient and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner should be directed to re-decide the case on merits in accordance with law.
8. Having heard the learned counsels briefly and upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petitions, this Court finds that the petitioner appears to be a busy body and has no direct lis in the matter. What prejudice has been caused to him by the absence of the respective private respondents in such meetings Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 10/12 is not even narrated in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are full of facts about the working of the respondent-Municipal Council, as if he is an insider and how all these facts became available to a citizen, who is an outsider and not a Councilor of the Town Municipal Council, is also a mystery. Merely because a citizen is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it does not entitle anybody like him to seek a writ of quo- warranto or a mandamus in these types of matters. Section 16(2) of the Act entitles the Deputy Commissioner to invoke these powers to record a finding of disqualification either suo-motu taking cognizance of certain facts or if a complaint/report is filed before him.
9. In the present cases, the duty of the petitioner ended when he brought these facts to the notice of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner by the complaint filed by him. The petitioner cannot be really said to be the Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 11/12
"person aggrieved" by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the present case. His political rivalries or personal rivalries do not entitle him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in this manner, even if the academic question of law about the sufficiency of service of summons issued by the Deputy Commissioner, was to be considered by this Court in appropriate case.
10. The petitioner has failed to explain the genuineness of his locus to approach this Court by way of present writ petitions. More so, he is failed to avail the alternative appellate remedy available to him under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act. No sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner to bypass such alternative appellate remedy available under the law.
11. This Court does not find any merit in the case to entertain these writ petitions and they are liable to be Date of Order 03-01-2017 W.P. No.47905/2016 c/w W.P.No.47841/2016 M.A. Ayyappan Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. 12/12 dismissed and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.