P Raju vs The Assistant Commissioner on 28 June, 2013

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

P Raju vs The Assistant Commissioner on 28 June, 2013

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

                           BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

              WP NOS. 15667-68 OF 2011[LB-RES]

BETWEEN

1.P RAJU
S/O.PALANIYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
POWDIAMMA TEMPLE ROAD
HIRIYUR TOWN 572 144
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

2.R MURUGESH
Age:40 YEARS
S/O.RANGAPPA NAYAKA
THIRUVALUR ROAD, 21ST WARD
HIRIYUR TOWN 572 144
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
                                          ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri : R V JAYAPRAKASH, ADV.)

AND

1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA 577 501
                              2




2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA 577 501

3.TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HIRIYUR BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
HIRIYUR 572 144
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

(By Smt : MANJULA R.KAMADOLLI, HCGP)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANN-O THE
ORDER DT.3.4.11, PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA [R1].

These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing B group this
day, the court made the following:

                             ORDER

In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 3.4.2011, Annexure-O passed by the first respondent and to set-aside the resolution passed by the third respondent - Town Municipal Council dated 23.03.2011.

2. A reading of the impugned order specifies that first respondent by exercising power under Section 306(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act passed the impugned order. A reading of Section 306(1) Act specifies that the Assistant Commissioner can only suspend the resolution passed by the third respondent - Municipal Council. But in the instant case the first respondent by exercising power under Section 306(1) of the Act set-aside the resolutions passed by the third respondent and the same is in violation of Section 306(1) of the Act. On this ground the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

3. Section 306(2) of the Act specifies that in the event of Assistant Commissioner passing an order under Section 306(1) of the Act then he is required to forward the same with a report to the Government. In the instant case, this mandatory requirement under Section 306(2) of the Act is not complied by the first respondent and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Further without providing an opportunity 4 to the third respondent the first respondent has set-aside the resolution passed by them. In the circumstances, the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 03.04.2011, Annexure-O is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

DKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court