High Court Karnataka High Court

Keshav Parameshwar Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Keshav Parameshwar Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2008
Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana
IN TEE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS ow FRIDAY,
2008 .' ,,

BEFORE _~m-
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE V}S.SAEHAHIT"l

AND ; ', ',_A' :
HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S:§.SAT¥ANARA¥AHfi~-w=

WP NO 35264 OF 20§4;{LB&EL?M§II

BETWEEN

L

(BY

KESHAV PARAMESHWARHSEETTI, "
Age 49 4I'._ f I'; _"QWx ,
49 YRS. COUfiCILLGR 3" "._*'°~~
or CMC,SIRSI_f.".;,"¢_'5'g' »
EEHINDIMAEKAMBA»TEM?LE;»sIRsI
TALfiK_SIRSI}gU_K,BISFRI€$_f

j '*«;_ 1' _*.' . PETITIONER
Sri JAYAKUMAR s EATIE &'ASSOCIATES, ADVS)

THE STATE QE-KAENETAKA
+~'%*<:I.e,= hull '  ..... 
"BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT

IvDEPT'OF,MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

"EM'sfEuILEING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

IV."EANGAIQRE,56e 001

IHE<$SsIsTANT COMMISSIONER
Age;'null

"n,sIRsI SUB DIVISION

I BER RETURNING OFFICER
"CMC SIRSI

} U K QISTRICT

TEE CITY MUNICI?AL COUNCIL
Age: null

SIRSI, U K DISTRICT

BY ITS COMMISSIONER

26 TH DAY OF sE9TEMEEgg:7,"x



H RESOPNDE§TSz

{By Sri UMESH R.MALIMATH, GA FOR R1 & R2$f""h"'
sR:.T.L.K1RAN KUMAR, ADV FOR R3) '

THIS wp IS FILED U/A 226_ & <227=foF* Teen, '

CONSTITUTION or INDIA ?RAxiNG"TD} QUASfi_ THE

NOTIFICATION VIDE AI'~¥N.D DT.1":9'""2Q'G4"v ISSUED 
1, IN SC) FAR AS IT PERTAlNS'.fI'O'._T§wIE  

PRESIDEN? OF THE R»3, SHOWN AT sL,No,315'5viMm,

THIS we COMlNGg ON ,FOR "HEARING '?HIS} DAY,
SABHAHI§ J., MADE THE FDLLQw:we:_=_

Thie~Qfit fietition is filed challenging the
notifioationVli§eneel,§y 'the Government dated
1 . 9 . 2094 ,' __gn»--;j~rlé:._;§"   Government has notified

alloteent of the offices of President and Vice

'Vt ?residient_tovvarieus categories for the EV term

in'feepeét ee 34 City Municipal Councils under

it Rule 13 ane7l3~A of the Karnataka Municipalities

u"",lfBresieent and Vice President) Election

x"--l€Amen&ment) Rules 2901.

2. It is the contention of the leazned

"".VvvVC'ounsel for the petitioner that he was elected

from Ward No.9 of third respondent Municipal

\VM3

Council, which was reserved for BCA category and

that he is affected by the notification

regarding allotment of posts of President iand

Vice President.

3. It is clear from the application filed 2

by the petitioner on 4.11.2004 teat the term End’

Councillors for resopndentIRo,3 is for a=pé:i¢d
of 30 months and out of the said period of 30
months already five montna have been_lapsed and

the Deputyt Commissioner lgwas I appointed as

Adminiatrator,W,ain the objections statement, it
is averred that the offioes of the President of

CMC,ifiirsirvfifidresfiondent has been allotted to

‘eoA””fihaér_ Goternment Notification dated

°i3;g§2dQ¢,aég§gr Annexure–R2. Therefore, having

regard to fithe above said facts and since the

Vpost of LPresident and Vice President in the

hthird§ respondent Municipality was allotted to

‘d*_lfBfiA by notification dated 13.9.2004 and the term

u”,fer which the said notification be operative has

also expired, the writ petition has become

infructuoua and the prayer sought for in the

\¢,9

writ petition does not survive , for

consideration. Accordingly, the writ_3fiétitiéfi ”

is disposed of as such.

Nd/