Smt M Lakshmamma W/O Late Madaiah vs The Mayor Cum Chairman on 30 November, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt M Lakshmamma W/O Late Madaiah vs The Mayor Cum Chairman on 30 November, 2010

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF' NOVEMBER 20.10

THE BONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B.  _

WRIT PETITION NO.36O 14 OI9~~2.010."'[LjA';RES'}.'_'_}_  

BEFORE

BETWEEN

1

SM'1'.M.I.AKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MADAIAH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

NO. 4792/1. 5TH CROSS A  
MARATA BLOCK. N12 MO1«1«ALLA_V ~  "
MYSORB-57000'? ' '   

SR1. M H SI9L%NKAPAP'P:P'.O   V' V.

S /O LATE M ;;_.HUC;HAN:\§A A "
AGE'D~ABCU'1" 63:3. "YEARS "

NO. 334, 'BE1YRA'IA~KU*;EERA
NARAYANA s11AsT2.Y"B,OAO '
MYsORE«570Q24g.  " "

SR1. '1'.j'AYARA1v's

V . gs/O..1,ATE'U-ORE GOWDA
. 'AGED ABOUT 62---Y':i3ARS
A NO'; 2?./EQMARIGUDI ROAD
" ~ KUME3ARA'K_OPPALU
 MYsORE{B7r3o16

'  VsM';:.. MBBAJ ESHWARI
"W/'O LATE PU'1TAswAMY

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

n  NOES. BHAVI ROAD
"VENAYAKA NAGARA

 ~ .  AND:

~MYSORE~57()O16

 PETITIONERS

{BY SR1 2 D .ASWATI*IAPPA. ADV. .}

'i'riE MAYOR CUM CHAERMAN
THE STANDENG COMIMJTTEE FOR TAXATEON.
FINANCE 8: APPEALS



I0

MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MYSORE--5"/0001

2 THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MYSORE--5'70001

3 THE ADDETIONAL SECRETARY    ; 
THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN r:;EVE1,Or2MEN*r -- ._ ~
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA      '
VIKASA SOUDHA I
BANGALORE560001

4 SR1. SHNAKUMAR

S /0 LATE PUTTAIAH.

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS _ .

NO. 879, 3RD CROSS' *    ;
SUNNADAKER1,NRMOi-1A:.ILA:   
MYSORE--570007  - 'RESPONDENTS

[BY:SMT.M.P,.C:rVEEEI"§iA  E0'R"R': & R2
SR1 H.T.'NAEENDRA  Heep FOR R3)

TH;'S"wvR;*:' PE???-'.TIO1\E» ES FILEED-UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF <Tr~£E _c0:~iST:frUT104N*'~0F I_ND1A PRAYING TO QUASH TSE
ORDERS: DATED "3_fS._8.»10"--A.rAND 20.10.2010 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURESE &._ H._gr>ASS'ED.~*' BY THE R3, AS WITHOUT
AUTI-TORJWOE LAW _& P.OWEfR AND 5710.

_§:"1'HIrS PE'1T"i'EQN COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY. THE

" "  COURE' n_{r.AL;E THE 'F'0r.,Er)w1NO:

ORDER

0' .__iThVe.'ﬁetﬁioners have raised the challenge to the V'-»0rderS',_eIated 16.8.2010 and 20-10-2030 (Ar1r1eXureS-E issued by the third respondent. T he petitioners' 0 hgfievance is Over the improper acceptance Of the fourth V reSp0r1dent:'S nOminati<)11 form for the Office Of the 3 Chairman of the Standing Committee for Taxation. Finance 8: Appeals.

2. Sri D.Aswathappa, the learned cou1is'e--l:'f"*foi'.i'< the petitioners submits that the first petitlionerilpl "

signed the nomination form of the"'responde_n'tAi the office in question. As theppetitionie-r'Ai'\lo. it unknowingly, she requests"i-that her'-.pro.po_:saiL'l5e' not accepted. As the ﬁrst"'petitioner'ns;signature"wa's taken fraudulently, the first respondent have looked into the genuineriess oif petitioners requestgfor 'proposal in exercise of the power con'ferre.d first respondent by Rule 72- p_C[4)_~ l{arnatal;_ap.};\/lunicipal Corporations (Election) w iliereinafter called 'Election Rules]. A' ' '«."."Srio:=.AJswathappa's next contention is that the ﬂvfirstu".respo1"1dent has Virtually abdicated his V' ll.fjresp'o.nsil)ility. Instead of deciding the matter, he has Cl"';§OSlEA)11 to be guided by the third respondent. The third respondent issues the directions, which are not tenable authority of law. He also and which are without. the 4 takes serious exception to the petitioners being kept out of the meeting for electing the Chairman of the _said Standing Committee. He submits that the have not even been put on notice informing tifie_tia'te'_"i V' and time of the election. He 'theHg meeting held on 22~11-2G1G_, elected behind the back of the'pfeti,tione1*--s7" it

4. Smt.M.P.Geet.hade\}i; 'c'ou"risel for the respondent i\Tos.1 'threshold bar to the maintairiaiailiity submits that the has to be Ventilated only by 'filing; adiglgriifconstituted election petition V. pp invoi/;5invvg_lAi:"2tiie x7'?-iof___thpe Election Rules. ' ~ Svnit;--Geethadevi submits that the petitioners that they would not take part in the "»,.,___"._e1ectionP';. She submits that the respondent No.1 has sought a clariﬁcation and that the third respondent has issued the clarification. Based on the correspondence between the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, neither the election nor th d Veloprnents ieadirig to the 5 election can be undone, so contends the learned counsel.

6. She further brings to the notice of thevfiouirtv that neither there is any provision for ~ nomination by the proposer w1'tho1_,:_t..th_e Aofau it V' the candidate nor the first petitioner nomination form.

7. Sri H.T.Narendra____i"Prasad, vvlvfiaarned Government Pleader V "appea.rin.g, ::'l'2.ehalf of the responclentv " if the proposer is permitted V to V nomination form of a candidate, no" electihon 'whatsoever can be held. in ti'ie'" **** "course of the rejoinder, Sri learned counsel for the petitioners subrnits challenge raised in this Writ petition is to.vV__hthe illegal directions given by the third it Turespori'dent. As the matter does not pertain to the oiitttorne of the election directly, there is no impediment in entertaining this petition, so contends _..__Sri Aswathappa.

9. Whether the first petitioner it 'w nomination form of the fourth res.ponde.ntuffoi~.,.the'ofﬁ_ce;;_ef of the Chairman of the V'tSt_anding" CVorn.rni.ttveem forth Taxation, Finance 8: Appals or or ignorantly, gegpondent has improperly accepted if of the fourth respondent, has issued the notice of petitioners, are all the disiintcsd .' facts, which cannot be resolved in"*t_he_ under Articie 226 of the _ Constit_ution of Ina:§ia_,____A , that the petitioners are reinediless. f Their'~«.rerned3}.1'~is to fiie an eiection petition invoking Rule of the'.«-iﬁihilection Rules. Their grievances squarely fail grounds enumerated in Rule 779 of the said if which are extracted hereinlf)elow:~ "'79. Grounds for deciaring the election of the returned candidate to be void. ~-- If the District Judge is of opinions» 7 {a} that the result of the election has been materially affected. W (1') by the improper reception refusal ofa vote; or i {ii} by any noncompliance :"

provisions of the Actor of any of these [b} that the nomination of if been wrongly rejected or th'a.t__. the Vr'ton"tinatio»riv'f'ﬁzfiéihe . successful candidate or of other caridici_o.=tedV'toho ' has not withdrawn his.candidatitre been wroraigly the District Judge shati .';1a,§lai§e election of the returned cat,1a'ida~te to ' "

Iii -It that the process for electing the.__'Chaii'n'iat.1" said Committee began on itsevif;'-ffhereafter the grievance pertaining to th;e"'e1eetvion<.ei'ther before the date of the eiection or on thedndatedvof.V.thei1=.electioIi is to be ventilated only before the ribunal. In taking this view, I am fortified by V' '.,:fthVe'fi"{)iVision Bench judgment of this Court, dated 28.9.2010 passed in Writ Appeal Nos.3065/2010 and 309697/2100 (Deputy Commissioner V. E3I'I1t.N.Latha And Others).

§

12. In the result, this petition is rejected without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the tenabiiity of the impugned orders. H reserved to the petitioners to avail:-'of ti1€priifII1ﬁ:'F'.1yV:'i)f Vifiiingxf an eieetion petition invoking RuIe.__ of Rules.

13. No order as toiiieostsxf ; i' V VCR _ _

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court