IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAE\lGAé.ORE
DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER,_2__0VfV.3VV'3i:u.."~...V"'~.V
BEFORE
THE HOi\£'8LE MR. 3USTICE A.N;V'Enu(3oPAa.A;rG_QiivDA
WRIT PETETION No.,25187/zzoioé (LB?Vr2AE's.) = "
BETWEEN: 2' V"
M. Backthavachaiam, aged 5<3l§?'ea..r$,VV:"'r~,_
S/o.G.3.Murgesh, " O'
_No.1777, 5"' Cross road, 2%
Robertson Pet, KGVF 56:3'1'22j.f '
...PETITIONER
(By Sn'. sjen'i'or counsel and Smt. Mamatha
G.KullS'V.'l«jss_oc,iate__s"Advs., )
AND:
1.V~€;1om'rnissione~r.,__ _____
_ 'i'Cit§<"iMu'i'iTicipa| Council,
Rob_e'r.tso,n'*~Pet,
KG.E*§§3 19,21.
2. $.u~n:1a.,rna}'or by age,
Father's name not known
Municipal Councilor,
O 'O'*'iNard No.2, Robertson Pet,
" KGF 563122.
Lo... *
.
N. Paiini, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipal Councilor,
Ward No. 15,
Robertson Pet, KGF 563122.
Muthukumar, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipal Councilor,
Ward No.5, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122.
8. Somaraj, major by age,
Father's name not known'
Municipal Councilor, '
Ward No.6, Robertson Pet,___4_l:"'*- 6
KGF 553122. 7
A. Shakila, major byage,"
Father's name not known'
Municipal :Cou_Vnjcilor:.,
Ward :\io..8_. R;o'bert.soni Pet, _ ;.
KGF s6=t31;_j_._.V r
Shaanti, major by age,.,_
Father'-'s narfiéj'-~not,kn.oW-n' '
Munlc§p'al C'eunc;i'iior,*~..,_
Warcl No.9,, Robe'rtso.niPet,
KGF 553122.» i '
M"anga|an,"mrnajor by age,
_Fathe.r's..,Vn'ame not known
" Miu..n'i'€_ipal°~Co.unci|or,
g 'Warci --!".li;o.b'1:=-=12, Robertson Pet, I
*--.._KGF-563122.
is
N.' Ashok, major by age,
'*-Eather's name not known
* Municipal Councilor,
3.0.
Ward No.16, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122.
D. Shivakumar, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipal Councilor,
11.
12.
13.
14.
Ward No.18, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122.
Jayanthi, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipai Councilor,
Ward No.18, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122. ' _
Prema Kumari, major by
Father's name notknownf 3
Municipai Councilor," ' '-
Ward No.20, Robertson R
KGF 563122;
S. Muraii', "rna'§Q by we...
Father'; name not 1<_n'o'iwn
Mu_nici.pa"i'..Cou--o,§:iEor,'. ' '
Ward No'.=22.,_, Robertson Petbwy
KG'? 5:r33122'.5:f-._,y4'r ' '
Vanita's§${1agven'd_ran,"rnajor by age,
Father's "name fnot*.l<n'"own
. 'E-flunsieipaf Co-uyncilor,
"~---Waird §\3ro.23, Robertson Pet,
' * 2 .§<o,E '5,e3_1~22.
major by age,
»..,4Fath.er'S;.n1ame not known
""176.
'f='l.1,|h.ia<:ipai Counciior,
W'a.r_d~ No.30, Robertson Pet,
3 " *=._3§GF 563122.
A. Ramesh Babu, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipai Counciior,
Ward No.31, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122.
17.C.Thangathai, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipai Councilor,
Ward No.32, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122.
18.Vijaya, major by age,
Father's name not known
Municipal Counciior, V
Ward No.34, Robertson Pet,
KGF 563122. '
19. Rasheed Khan, ma'joz'xby Page, ~ A '
Father's name not 3'I~ ON CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCI, ROBERTSON
PET_,KGF, ON 11.8.09, VIDE ANN--D & TO GRANT SUCH
* OTHER RELILEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
" "DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner having been d__ecla_red_*’e’l’ecte:l’~a’s.V a_
Councilor of the City Municipal Cio.unic_’_iii~{‘C’MC”‘
Robertson Pet, KGF., was”lsu”.a.sequenti*,z_el!.:ecte~d«….as
President. The said ClVl_C, hasAg_3.£’i:A’wai*~dgs/ 3S”Co_uncélors.
2. On 3O.7.2Oi}9,’V:_:iv3″ served a
notice on 15′ i’e’s’p.QI%1dent a resolution of
no–confideliceljiiégiaihnlstilgjétijvtiuoneir uilgdelr s.47(2) r/w 342(9)
of 1964 (for short ‘the
Act’). sa’iil’Aiiot*ice, 15′ respondent convened a
meegting toabeV_:Vheld’-on~.1?I:8.2OO9 and notices in that regard
‘C we’r–e:’issue’d._on 3.i8′}};/;’OO9, i.e., for the purpose of holding a
of the Councilors. According to the
petition,er’,:”lfneeting did take place on 14.8.2009 in which
13 Councilors attended and 22 Councilors remained
Petitioner states that, in the meeting a resolution
passed reflecting the fact of their being no quorum,
meeting having been concluded by recording that no~
confidence motion was not put through and was rejected.
i
-«f ,
An nexure~C is the copy of the resolution. Acco_r;d’i’ntj.,’_t-oi: _
petitioner, notice of no confidence motion.~w»as”.ne–gat.ived”
by the resoiution as at Annexure-C.
3. On 11.8.2009, respopndents-.__2*–to
notice to move restoration of rivopiconfidenceimjotionviwagainst V
President and Vice-presiden,t””ofn._:’th’e..__Mu nic’i’pai74Councii.
Request made by respond’entis.f52;:’ Annexure-D
has been qu’e’s_t_i,c$fie?;;g_ _w”rit’._:petition. Prayer in the
writ petition.Lips;to.’:Li§:;:~asi’1.’.Vth.e no’tice”to move the restoration
of no~c’o_nfider’ice’rr;’otiori°se’rv_ed by respondents 2 to 19 on
the 19′ resgtond,ein_,t’i.a’n’d..”-~”to issue a writ directing 15′
,_ res,p’ci:nde’iit,Vnot to «e.n.te~rtain the move for restoration.
of writ petition was ordered to the
resp.ond_ents,i;..’Ai Respondents have entered appearance
1″”«__V”‘»fhroug’ii.,_c’ounse|. Learned counsel on both sides submitted
A I’tri~a.t,.’..«.-‘main matter itself could be heard and disposed of.
Hence, with consent of the iearned counsel on both sides,
matter is taken up for finai disposal.
t
/
..,,contentions.
that, in view of the last 3 words contained in”-._the
proceeding as at Annexure–C to the V.
.i5}i.dri..2~?i!}oi2.i£.<3 :'.3.'.1…..x3.5…'3:;'.(.'«'t:*i5.v9i'?¥,t.'3,t$.«'. iiz..i…be:ng to«ta:lly:V*'
the request at Annexure–D, was rhade'.~ V
no meeting took place on 14V.8.2()iA:CJ9,::'the to
no– confidence motion wa"s,"i-neither-.'takenaflup for'
consideration nor any ir'e~s_oiuti~on' 'was 'pa.ssed."'Hence there
is no iliegaiityi._':¢c'o«i}i.;fiitted can the meeting
to consider:t.hei:_;?3Aoptio'ri' As the request at
Annexu Vre–_VA_' View of the said part of
writing ircttie 14.8.2009, the request at
Annexure–D4aw~as'rnade. iisetitioner has no right to question
it"thVe'i"reqE'i'iest'at Anne§iure–D and the writ petition is totally
A'~-not m"avi.n't.ai'riaf';i3,iVe. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a
dec~i.sion_v'of.this Court: in the case of PRAKASH AND OTHERS
ci~:.iiEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND
(ILR 2005 KAR 2010) in support of his
to
/,'.
14
being contrary to the earlier part of the proceedings. _i:tse:._f_.
It is inconceivabie as to how such a recording=§:ou:|’d5Qh-arve…1″.
F
been made as if the subject was_:f.ej»ected’.'”For.i;iian”t..Vo,_ ‘
quorum, the subject did not Come uipifor’cons’Edera’t§..on;i_1
was not considered by the ho_u’s-ex and”-no resio:|’Ljt{i._o«n..’either -. L’
expressing confidence or wan:____Q}’-..;o’nfiden’ce,Vvwasi passed
and in the circumstances iexceptf.»statinigseithat, the meeting
did not take place, no oth’e~.. .fact”;ou’|d..’ha:{fe”heen recorded.
13. In the P£.;.NAG:ENVD’i2A*5EiEDDY (supra), the
matter which ‘feilyifor’considér’atio§nV” was the one which
arose Lrnder_A Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and
the Ruies’ made’theteurjoe”r’«-Jiz., Karnataka Panchayat Raj
(Motion. xofu” .’\§o”iCon’fidence against Adhyaksha and
‘ i”‘t:p’a”dnyé’i<sh'a.)«_ Rulegfissa. By virtue of the statutory
i,e., sub–ru|es (5) and (6) or Rule 3, the
notitze of-~n_o}–Cionfidence shail be deemed to have been
R""-__V'iapsed; wiiich is not the fact situation herein.
'H14. In the case of PRAKASH (supra), 15' petitioner
the Acfhyaksha and 2'" petitioner was the
t
15
Uoadhyaksha and others were the noitiinated mei’iiljehr’s-of’
a Town Municipal Council. They had questionedrthec:Vn”o’t’ilce_”‘_’i V’
calling for meeting of no~confi=.deneez§rriotion—
Adhyaksha and Uoadhyal<:sh.-':i. An v"e.lV_e"cted jfiaci
filed an application for implea4di.n:g,.Vyywhlichsi ivfalioweé,
since he was a signatorytyo to rno\,i/e the HOK.
co n fl dence motion a g avin.s.t:'_ Ad pa d nya l<:sha.
A similar was aciyancecl
to the effeglj is bad in law as it is
secontiiino5_c’oAn’ii.i,Jy’§’in»_ce i”i”io’ti’o__ri _m;oy”ed within a period of one
year frorn..V_t:Lhe Noticing the decision in the
case o’f’vSAl}’lT.§A.\[I’i’P§I ESTATE or KARNATAKA {ILR 2003
piioyioe that no–confiaenCe motion could
Iinotjhlave}5ee.Ari~rnoved within one year, the matter with
Fef€’i7€r’iC_f3″‘£0.i’tiiE facts situation was examined and it was
as ‘follows:
So far as the first contention urged on
behalf of the getitioners that the litiougned
notice is bad in law as the no confidence
motion is moved within one year from the
date of Anne><ure–A is concerned, this
contention is wholly untenable in law and
18
15. The decision, is a compiete ansvyei’«..to…_:the42
contention urged by the iearned Sr. Codnse.i..fo,.r’:peti.tio.rieri'”
It is unnecessary for me to recordfia
the iegaiity or otherwise the”,_’rec;iiest’u’i~
respondents 2 to 19 as at of the
submission made by It was
submitted that in__view respondents
2 to 19 and ‘:_’vu’:o’Lixi’cj…_3;eSent to the 1st
respondent: _a no~confidence against
the City Municipai Councii.
There cannéott impediment for such a
notice’ *b(§1’flg.Vg’vi,\.{‘€Vi’i’1tO the 15’ respondent. Since notice to
‘””mo%;/e nE’o#co’iafideeceinotion requested under Anne><i_ire~A
Vwtais not.:Vc'o;fi'sid~eried and resoiution passed, the respondents
2 to_ 1_9*or'.v'Aother members of Mimicioaé Coencii can
K"4"-._V"'approa'cht' the 15' respondent for necessary action.
o:."?Veti.ti'.oner cannot take aid i.Ii'idGi" S.-42(9) of the Act and
.,,c_dntend that, no resoiwtioe couid be passed against him
it and the Vicewpresident, for a period of one year with effect
from }4,8.2009, ¥)
/4:
19
16. In view of the iilegaiity noticed by meVinT»the
proceeding at Annexure–C, extracted supra,at—d.tee_fh’~l’:§:t
appropriate to quash that part of Annexure~C;–._:.e., . i’.-‘°”.,’§#’.V,.*3h.
iJ.~’1′:’>5.«’€?3.t;:1:fJ_ .x:°.e3’/5(}fi9§a.é2»fDi3\%2<3'i;I. so the reco,;d:-._:c€$oI'd'
remain straight and the confusion is«..c3'ear_edI"-~d._
In the resuit, while quapshiflpgvsDert:,pof."Ann–éxt}re~C as
above, the writ '_Vbei:ng€;_devo_§'d._Vofmerit, stands
dismissed. In and of the case,
there shail be no_ord'e.t~{as3to co_sts___. . '
JUDGE