C M Sumitra Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

C M Sumitra Ramesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           WRIT PETITION NO.878 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

C M SUMITRA RAMESH,
W/O RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
COUNCILOR,
R/O SIDARTHA NAGAR,
WARD NO.8, SIDLAGATTA
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.                 ...PETITIONER

(BY PROF.RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR.ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
     M S BUILDING,
     BENGALURU-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

  2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA -562101.

  3. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
     SIDLAGATTA,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
 SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
                                  2



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
MEETING NOTICE DATED 12.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE R3 FIXING
THE DATE OF MEETING ON 19.01.2022 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-H.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued under Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') fixing the date of meeting on 19.01.2022 for consideration of no confidence motion against the petitioner.

2. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Deviprasad Shetty, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice issued is contrary to Section 48 of the Act which requires that seven days clear notice has to be provided to conduct general meeting.

3. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act is directory and not mandatory and as such, the impugned notice issued by the respondent - Council is in accordance with Section 42(9) of 3 the Act. In support, she placed reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4904/2021 (DD 23.3.2021).

4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The point that arises for consideration is:

i) Whether the impugned notice issued by the respondent - Council is in consonance with Section 48 of the Act?

6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4904/2021 has held that the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act is directory and not mandatory. Even otherwise, Section 80 of the Act specifies that the notice issued under Section 42(9) of the Act will not be invalid in the event of any illegality in issuing the said notice. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned notice issued by the respondent - Council. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE BKM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court