High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri C T Krishnamurthy vs The Commissioner on 20 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri C T Krishnamurthy vs The Commissioner on 20 March, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
 "  % A-G_ED»_A--ABwGfUT 40""x'E3ARS.

 J%c:;%1$i; :1{L:f1\%iAR,

  MAHADEVAPPA,
'-  A(}E$D ABOUT 40 YEARS.

%   *  €'>_, SR1. 3. MAHESH,

IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA, BAN%§§AL{:§;:*:i;%~  
DATED THIS THE 20% DAY cm?    Ak
BEFORE %L%%V _ %% .
THE HQNBLE MR. JUSTICQERAM 1.\)EC}.I~L'&I:\I'v_RVI§.':I3I§'Y'V:
WRIT PETITION vI\§£§.79$5"$VI_i' 2609 {@2351
BETWEEN: 4' % ' E V   %'
1. SR}. QT.  '  
s/0. s.*m1MMmAH,'%.    % 
AGED AI3;GU'»F 5'{}'5YEARfS'§"'--   '
2. SR}.  iéasria,
s/0.13. ABDL?I;.«v.I_{E:TADEi?__ BASHA,
AGED".ABi_Z){}'I' k57*;Y_EARs%.% 

3. SR}, 3. L}IA_rm3U1§I;exT:--i, 
S /9. ERAPPA,

% %S)'G*- NINGWPA,
AGED A_B QUT 40 mms.

SR1. 'ra¢,A'iMALLIKARJUNA,

C11'

% 3/<3. JAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

7'. SR1. RH. SURESH,  
 i
(I.

 



10.
11.

12.

 _ U154.

16.

S/C). ERANNA,
AGED mom' 38 YEARS.

SR1. PRAKASB,
s/0. DODDA OBAIAH, _
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. * 

SMT. SAKAMMA, s
w/0. MANJUNATH, ' 

AGES ABOUT 25       

SMT. SHARA{)AM:IvIA,* If  

sM'1\..T1\4:'£)_."\2'3E1\:A;  " 
W/O. OBANNA,  %  
AGED A130???-
SR1. ]3ErIASKAR,'*._ \ .
s:;'--Q. SCiMAS§~€iEIUT so YEARS.

SR1; *A.B4DUL JABBAR,
? S/0-. ABDUL RASHEED sag,

LL  A "AGED wow 55 YEARS.

SMT. LAKSHAMMA,
W/O. H. MURIGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

SMT. SYED BANU,
W/O. ABDUL STTAR SAB,

x2'

I 

W/O. NEELM«;ANTA?PA,   k. V t
AGED  $5}   [ .



convening a meeting to consider the said motiortsf or V,

confidence', prompted the petitioners to  V' "

respondent by I'£*§I'6S€1'}.i",ati()}T1 date'd. 'I  to 

convene the meeting.

2. The provisions of V-47(3) of
Municipalities Act, ef 30
days from the date of to convene
a meeting to olotien’ by the
C«OII1II1i.SSiOI]fit.”<t.;',":::43';i'7 not convene the
under sub~–seetion
(2) of Seeijoi} of the petitioners is that

the re:spoz1tfii'er1t, uby notice dated 18-O3»-2{}09

cotiifefied the meeting on 9-4-2009 at

"';ie.1§x(}£»39u would be beyond the 30 days' fime

fxxed-..4__V eub~sectio11 (3) of Section 47, for

" 'j.__eoz_1si(ie"I*intTg the 'no conficience motion', virtually

'V/'

A the effeft of the petitioners to have their 'no

Ii" ' Veofifidence motion' considered by the Munieipa}

WK

Council. in other words, the motion of 'no '

dated 2e–o2~2oo9 Annexure~"A", f:»:o:3l.d spéiiekieréateee

if the meeting is held on 9–~'¢ii–20O<§;.Voiie'_i1i?V1e

it is beyond the time se'Lpu1ai;iez:'{:'i1.1idei*'of

Section 47 of the Act. v}rIence,'..'ehieL:wfiie.petifioii;

3. Having e.heard’….!:§.1_<§:V for the
petitioners 44 is considerable
force in is held on 9*
4~20{.)9 vveenfidenee motion' dated 26-

02-2009, defeated as the meeting is

to beyor1d:iihei:3O day period fixed under sub–

Seetiozl 47 of the Act. On tiiis gonad

deserves to be allowed.

In vibe result, this writ petition is allowed. The

dated 18433-2009 Axmexure-“E” 9:” the

jfeejgiondezit is quashed with a direction to the

_4 ifrespondent to issue notice convening the meeting \:§2’it11§I1

M

30 ciays from 264)?-2()O9 to consider the ‘no %

motion’, that is on or before 27~o3-2009; f£>t*t1″:wi’–3;i1.-;’ V ‘