Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mahadevamma W/O Tippanna vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
DATED THIS THE 29 T H DAY OF NOV EMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS . J USTICE K.S .MUDAGAL
WRIT PETITION N OS.111412-111413/2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O.TI PPANNA ,
AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC : COUNCIL W ARD NO.18
KARATAGI, R/ O.INDRA NAGAR, KARA TAGI,
TQ-GANGAVATHI , DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
2. SMT.ANNAPURNAM MA W/O.GIRIYPPA BHOODI ,
AGE;45 Y EARS, OCC:COUNCIL WARD NO.21 AND
PRESIDENT T .M.C. KARATAGI, R/O.S ALONI STREET,
KARATAGI, T Q-GA NAGAVTHI, DIST-KOPPAL583 229.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAVI S.BA LIKAI, ADV OCATE.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY , M UNICIPA L ADMINISTRATION,
M.S.BUILDING, BA NGALORE-560 001.
2. CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICI PAL COUN CIL KARATA GI,
AT : KARATAGI , T Q-GANGAVTHI ,
DIST-KOPPA L-583 229.
2
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017
3. SMT.MAHADEVI W/ O.LAXMAN,
AGE : 28 YEARS, OCC : VI CE PRESI DENT
T.M.C KARATAGI, AT : KARATAGI ,
TQ: GAN GAVATHI, DIST-KOPPAL- 583 229.
4. SHARANESHA S/ O.NAGAPPA SALONI,
COUN CIL 4 T H WARD, A GE : 35 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L- 583 229.
5. H.EISHA PPA S/ O.A MARAPPA
COUN CIL 20 T H WA RD, A GE: 38 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L- 583 229.
6. G.TIMMANGOUDA S/O.BASAVANTA PPA,
COUN CIL 13 T H WA RD, A GE -41 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
7. SMT.BHUNESWRI W/O.SHIVREDDY N AYAK,
COUN CIL 3 R D WARD, A GE - 43 Y EARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
8. SMT.S.M.CHANNAMMA W/O.SHARAN AYYASWAMI,
COUN CIL 9 T H WARD, A GE : 40 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L-583 229.
9. SMT.K.RADHA D/ O.LAXMAN,
COUN CIL 7 T H WARD, A GE - 32 YEARS ,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L- 583 229.
10. RAVIRAJ PATIL S/ O.CHANNAVEERAN NAGOUDA ,
COUN CIL 14 WARD , A GE- 33 YEARS ,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L-583 229.
11. PARUSHRAM S/O.I RANNA TALWAR,
COUN CIL 22 n d WA RD, A GE- 30 YEARS ,
3
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
12. D.HOLIYAPPA S/ O.HANUMANTAPPA ,
COUN CIL 5 T H WARD, A GE- 35 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
13. R.C.C. MARUT HIKUMAR S/O.ANJINA PPA,
COUN CIL 2 n d WA RD, A GE- 30 YEARS,
C/O.T .M.C. KARAT AGI, TQ-GAN GAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
14. K.H.SAN GANAGOUDA S/O.H.HANUMA NGOUDA ,
COUN CIL 10 T H WA RD, A GE- 33 YEARS ,
C/O.KARATA GI, TQ-GANGAVTHI,
DIST-KOPPA L 583 229.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI V.HOSAMANI, A GA F OR R-1 AND
SRI.HANUMANTHA REDDY SAHUKAR A DVOCATE
FOR C/ R-7)
(NOTICE T O R- 2 T O 6, 8 TO 14 IS DI SPENSED WITH)
THESE WRIT PETI TIONS ARE FI LED UNDER 226 AND
227 OF THE CONS TITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO IS SUE A
WRIT OF CERTI ORARI, QUASHIN G THE NOTICE DATED
22.11.2017, BEARING NO.PhuK aKa/Other/ CR-427/2017-
18/ 386, ISSUED BY THE 2 N D RESPONDENT PROD UCED AS
ANNEXURE-C.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEA RING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
4
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017
ORDER
Sri.Ravi Hosamani the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1
2. Sri.Hanuamantreddy Sahukar appears for respondent No.7 caveator. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 14 is dispensed with.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Petitioners are the councillors of Karatagi Town Municipal Council. The 2nd petitioner is officiating President of said Municipal Council.
5. Respondent No.3 to 14 issued requisition to the 2 n d petitioner to convene a meeting for bringing no confidence motion against her. She challenged that notice before this Court in Writ Petition No. 110841/2017 (LB-RES). This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 10.11.2017 as pre-matured. 5
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 Thereafter respondent Nos.3 to 14 issued another requisition Annexure-B dated 20.11.2017 to the Vice President of Town Municipal Council, Karatagi to convene the meeting for bringing no confidence motion against the 2 n d petitioner.
6. Simultaneously, they submitted the copy of the same to the 2 n d respondent-Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council requiring him to convene the meeting as required under Section 47(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Accordingly the 2 n d respondent has convened meeting by issuing the notice Annexure-C dated 22.11.2017. Under the said notice, the meeting scheduled on 04.12.2017.
7. The petitioners seek to challenge Annexure-C on the following grounds.
(i) There is no requisition to the 2 n d respondent to convene the meeting as required under 6 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 Section 47(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
(ii) The meeting is scheduled beyond 30 days contrary to Section 47(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
8. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following judgments ;
(i) Nyamatulla Khan Vs.Chief Officer, City Municipal Council, Savanur, Haveri District and another (1998) 4 KLJ 383.
(ii) Babu Verghese and Others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422.
(iii) Chandra Kishore Jha Vs.Mahavir Prasad and Others. (1999) 8 SCC 266.
9. Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, the learned counsel for respondent No.7 and Shri.Ravi Hosmani 7 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 the learned Additional Government Advocate seek to sustain the notice Annexure-C on the following grounds ;
(a) The petitioners being the President and the Councillors cannot maintain the petition.
(b) Annexure-B itself contains the requisition issued to the 2 n d respondent to convene the meeting.
(c) 30 t h day fell on Sunday a General Holiday. Therefore the meeting convened on 04.12.2017 that is next working day is saved by Section 10 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899.
10. In support of their contentions they relied upon the judgment of this Court in Imam Jafarkhan Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (WP.No.180311/2015 (LB-ELE) C/w. W.P.Nos.107206- 107210/2015 and 107211-213/2015, 107217- 107223/2015 (LB-RES) disposed of on 25.08.2015. 8
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY
11. The petitioners are the elected councilors. The 2 n d respondent is the President of the Town Municipal Council, Karatagi. This Court in Imam Jafarkhan's case referred supra has held that the sitting president and the other members of the Municipal Council have no locus standi to question the no-confidence motion moved against the Adhyaksha.
12. It is held that petition challenging the validity of notice on the ground that notice was short by one day of the minimum prescribed period, is not maintainable.
13. While holding so, this Court relied upon on the earlier reported judgment of this Court. Relevant paragraph of said judgment reads as follows ;
"16. In the case of MANJULA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2014(3) Karnataka,LJ 469 it is held that a sitting 9 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 president has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition on the grounds of violation or non- compliance of the requirements of the Rules.
17. Similarly, the other members of the Municipal Council have also no locus standi to question the no-confidence motion moved against the Adhyaksha; the other members cannot be treated as the aggrieved persons. If they are not in favour of the no-confidence motion, they can always cast their votes against it. Instead of doing so, they have approached this Court which is wholly unwarranted. In saying so, I am fortified by this Court's decision in the case of FAKIRAPPA DURGAPPA HRIJAN Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2005 Karnataka. 2592.
18. It is also worthwhile to refer to the Divison bench's judgment in the case of MUNIRATHNAMMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR AND ANOTHER reported in 2007 (1) Karnataka.LJ 543 wherein it is held that the writ petition challenging the validity of notice and the no- confidence resolution on the ground that the 10 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 notice actually served on the members was short by one day of the minimum prescribed period, is not maintainable. It is further held therein that the Court cannot reinstate Adhyaksha removed from the office by a democratic process."
14. This matter is fully covered by the judgment in Imam Jafarkhan's case referred to supra, therefore not maintainable.
REGARDING REQUISITION
15. Section 47(3) of the of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 state that one-third of the whole number of councillors may call meeting for bringing no confidence motion and require the Chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner to give notice to the Councillors. The said Section reads as follows :
"(3) If the President fails to call a special general meeting as provided in sub-section (2), the Vice-President or one-third of the whole number of councillors may call such meeting for a day not more than thirty days 11 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 after the presentation of such request and require the Chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner to give notice to the councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting."
16. Admittedly the number of the Karatagi Municipal Councillors is 23. Requisition Annexure-B is issued by 12 of the councilors. It is almost by half of the members.
17. While submitting Annexure-B to the Vice- President, simultaneously the said councillors have submitted the requisition to the 2 n d respondent for information and further action. Annexure-B contains an endorsement to that effect on its foot.
18. In Annexure-C the notice, it is stated that, the meeting is being convened as per the directions of the councillors under their letter dated 04.12.2017. Therefore there is no merit in the contention 12 WP.Nos.111412-413/2017 Annexure-C is issued without the requisition of the 1/3 r d councillors.
REGARDING 30 DAYS NOTICE
19. Admittedly the requisition Annexure-B is presented to the 3 r d respondent on 03.11.2017. As per Section 9 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 while computing 30 days a day at the beginning has to be excluded. 30 t h day fell admittedly on 03.12.2017 Sunday a General Holiday. Therefore meeting is convened on 04.12.2017. As per Section 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 in computing any period fixed, if the last day happens to be the General Holiday and such act is done on next working day, that is to be treated as done within the prescribed period. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that meeting is convened beyond thirty days.
13
WP.Nos.111412-413/2017
20. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no grounds to interfere. Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckk/-