Karnataka High Court
Sri Neeramani Hasan vs The Director Of Municipal on 10 January, 2012
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao, A.S. Bopanna
IN II IE I 11011 Ct )l R I OF KARNA 1 AK A. CIR(J II 13L\Cl I AI
DH\R\\ AD.
D.\ lID I IllS H IL I 0 D \Y 01 JAM ARY. 2012
PRESI N I
II IF I ION'BLE MRiUS HCF K. SRELDHAR RAO
AND
i}IE HON"BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. I3OPANNA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 6067'20IO
A'W MISC. W. NO. 62149'2010
Beiw cen:
Sri \eeranlanj I lasan a Suhani,
S o Niohiddina Sal,,
Age: 42 CW's. Dec.: Councillor of
LM.(. Shiggaon. R'o Khazikhan Oni.
Shiaaon-58 1 205. Dist, Haeri.
- Appellant
([3% Sri rinand \. Paelichapure. .\d\ ucale)
And.
I 1 he 1) ireewr 1' Ni un ici pal \dm in i traion.
) I luor. V.\ I o er.
I )r. B R \mhedkar N ccdhi.
I3ansaIore-U Oul
2. 1 he Deput\ niioner.
II J\ en 1 )i tnicl. I En cii.
3. I he hid ()flcer,
I own \lunicipal (uned.
S1iigaun. I at Shigguon.
I )ist. I laveri
4 Shri Annappa.
S o Shankarappa Navaleund,
Major. 0cc.: Nil.
R. o Shi am-5 I U7,
I )ist I laveri.
-- IpondenU
(h\ Sri KR. Adh\ apak. 1 \ddl. (iOvt. Ad ucate tor RI & R2.
Sri Siddappa S. Sajjan. AdVocate br R3.
Shri \IrlIth\ unjava 1 ala Bani. Ad ocale flw R4
ThiN writ Appeal is tiled u 4 of the Karnataka I I igh Court Act.
'
pra\ in to Net aNide the order dated U ti I .2U I U passed h the learned Single
Judge in \\ P. No. US-L (>t)) and etc.
isc. \\ Nu. ( I 4U ( I () is tiled pra\ inc to \ acale the interim
order.
I his appeal conlina on for linal hearing this da\ A.S.Iiopanna, .
J.. deli \ ered the Ii lo\\ in:
.JUDCMEXT
I . The petitioner is held to he disqual died from holding the
membership ot the Town Municipal Council. Shiggaon. The ground
on \\ hich the disquali lication hs been made is that the peutioner is a
partner in M. Suhhani Shamiana Suppliers. \\ hich has certain business
dealings with the Municipal Council and the said establishment had
reeei\ ed a sum of I 6,S5() from the Municipal Council. The learned
-
•1 S Single Judge before whom the order of disqualification was assailed, has upheld the order while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 66482/2009. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge. is beibre us.
2. The learned counsel thr the appellant would contend that the petitioner has not incurred the disqualification in as much as he is only a partner in the lirm and the licence for carrying on the business had been obtained by the firm prior to the petitioner being elected as a Councillor to the Municipal Council.
3. The learned counsel 11w the respondents are to justify the order of the learned single Judge.
4. In the background of the above contentions. the only issue Ibr consideration is as to:
II iit'ilic'r (IW pennunL'r hcts lIlL'lIflVLI 11w clix qiiulfticaiion as contemplated u/S Ió(Iftk) of the Karnataka Alwzicixiliiiex Ad. 1964?4
5. ii would be useful to refer See. l6(l Xk) of the Act. 1964. which reads as hereunder:
16(1, A person shall be disqualifk'cI für being chvseii us. andfür being. a ('oundilor (ci) X.tttttv 'C) (I) xxxxxx tA, Ii. .ccifl? cI.% lit'rt'iiicsllt'r l)rvViClt'ct lit' licix clirt'ctlv or indirectly by hhnse4f or his partner any share or interest in cmv work clone 1w order of the municipal council. or hi any eohiIiuci or c'inplovineiii nil/i or under, or by or vii he/ic,!! of the iiiunwiniI council.
6. In this regard a perusal of the provision would indicate that a person would be disqualified from being chosen as the member of the Council, in the eventuality as contained in sub-Sec. (k). When the disqualification is even 11w being chosen as a Councillor. the mere fact that he had obtained licence earlier, would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. In any event, the Ihet that the lirm had certain financial dealings with the Town Municipal Council is not in dispute. Thereibre keeping these aspects in view and also keeping in view the provision of Law as noticed earlier, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has appropriately considered the matter and upheld the order of disqualification. Therefore we see no error committed by the learned single Judge so as to c'all for interference in this appeal. Accordingly. the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
O. In iew of dismissal of the appeal. Misc. V. No. 62 I 49:'D() I 0 filed for vacating the interim order. stands disposed of:
Sd! JUDGE b" Sd/ JUDGE S