?l§P/,»/
m THE HIGH coum or
Dated this the 24th dvéay :7'
BEEQRE % '
THE HOWBLE '$HYfiENDi2A KUMAR
BETWEEN:
Writ Petiziofi Ht; 1'sé2_g [LB-RES]
V
SON 'O.}?"'31%L_SHE_K.%_RAPPA HQLEGUND1
' AG}£;' MAJOR'; VCHAIRMAN
KOPPAL'-'UE2_B"AVN'DVEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
"=2«;o?PA:.._ DES'? VKO_P?fiL._.
PETITIONER
A' k'%gVB3{sz& s N Hatti, Adv)
- 'v.TPiE~$;T{'¢XTE OF' KARNATAKA
' v..£s§r1*rsT~s:s;cRETARY
D13':-?r.'cf.~§* URBAN DEVELOPMENT
1»: SIILJILDINGS
<;§M3a'EDKAR VEEDHI
" _E;'&NGALORE--01
THE DEPUTY CC)M§éISS¥ONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOFPAL ., RESPONDENTS
[By Sri K Vxdyavati, HCGP]
THIS WRIT PETYFION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 EFF’ THE
CONS’f’I’TUi’l’ION OF’ INDIA, P¥3AY1NG TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR
2
DATED 7-«K11-~2007 ISUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OFKARNATAKA
VIDE ANNEXUR’E–D AND ETC. M
ms PETITION comm om FOR ogoms icoum
MADETIEFOLLOWING: v_
Writ – petition by a Las
chairman of Koppal Urbafi in teffias
of the government .or(1_er [A o11exure–A to
the Writ petition] if member of the
Karnataka V’ Bank [KDCC],
claims to be a. director of
Autoliiobiles ‘Consumers’ Co-operative Soceity
Ltdg,-V Ha1i§a;., has q::_e§iioned the mazity of the order dated
. . ” to the writ petition}, is aggrieved that
I flee to tender resigantion in terms of the
eommmiiefifion dated 9–11–2007 [Armexure-C to the Writ
.. originated from the office of the deputy
‘ ‘._ <:'o:fimissioner of Koppal district, purporting to be on the
" * "oasis of the gevemment circular dated 7-11-2007
{Annexure-D to the writ petition]; that the mtitioner is
sought to be relieved of his office before three
years as has been mentioned ojrtieii-j V30;
that a request of the deputyf fort]
petitioners resigiation or
circular under any basis or
reason; that it is at application of mind,
an ' tftierefore liable to be
quasheti; is filed questioning the
legedjtye the request of the deputy
VV .4 — . an " i '
2. _v isued to the respondents and they
Ms K Vidyavati, learned government
‘ Statement of objections has also been filed on
i’ respondents. An application is moved seeking
for” agitating the interim order of stay, on the smzngth of
it * the petitioner has continued to be in ofiice of the
chairman, Koppel UDA so far.
3. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri S__
counsel, submits that the question to:
the interim order and dispose} of .1?-‘$3
petition itself can be heatfiegn p is
taken up for dispesal.
4. Sri Hatti, petitioner would very
I under the impugned
circmei’..pe.$.44_§;eii:’tee of the deputy commissioner
A’ of the pefitioner and like
pereo.1:ie,te is arbitrary action; that it is without
3 Ieese3:1_V”o’1r juetification and Without evaluating the
A =._”‘pet’i’o1*:t1e;1ce or merit of any of the incumbents in the ofiiee;
aefion of this nature seeking en masse resigantion
titer out threat to terszninate the services in the event
i ” * of Vofiiee bearers not obiigng to tender their resigantion, is
itiothing short of a gees arbitraiy action opoeed to the
requirement of the state action being fair and the power
being exercised in 3. bone fide manner and only for
ye
5. On the other hand, Ms K vidys:;«.;ié.ti,*i
government pleader, would sub_mit,__tha_i:”
nature questioning the legality ::’of
come in for examination __c<§
occasion and such "_i*1a've'beer1't1is1I;issed; that
such is the videw following
Which, a has dismissed a
similar writ case being in pari
materiga' by this court earlier in
WP NoV:'1.84o1' :14-to-2008 in the case of Sri M
Ravindra '£I(?,VIfS1A1&3-_b'SV"t2é':;ittt3 of Karnataka, this writ petition
V' «is to…be:,_Adismissed'"ar1d there is no justification to continue
of stay; that the interim order should be
vziieé-ited';r:onseque:1tIy the writ petition should also
1' ' V" . "d.ismis$e_d.
ii “Atte:1’o’on is also drawn to the provisions of Section 5
. V ii the Karnataka UI’be.’:%.!T} Development Authorities Act, 1987
and submits that the very appointment being at the
‘pleasure’ of the government, the
any gievance if such appointme1_1Li»s teririii1aied;”‘ihat
aspect had been indicated in tile Vex}; ;t.”‘€51fder.”= ”
and therefore the 2 iofvi
vioiation of principles ;ofnati1reifjiustioe…’ ” ii I V»
7. I have examinedxatiie’ vesiihmissions and also
the earlier decision judgment of the
Supreme Vzomntctir
8. _Whiie~4i’tie£at any arbitrary action is frowned
v*i.o1ati{?e’oi’«A1’tic1e 14 of the Constitution of India
the State is required to be fair and any
is. required to be exercised in a fair and bone:
fide mariner, in the present case, the ratio of the decision in
‘iii_1;r;ei f’.r case of SHIQILEKIIA VIDYARTIH [supra] is
.i _»V_<_§istjng11ishabie for the simple reason that the exercise of
power in the ease of SHRILEKHA VIBYA.Rfl'.Hif [supra] was
being examined in the context of en masse termination of
services of district government counsel by of
Uttarapradesh, who had been
three years after undergoing seine
akin to probation. The of
about the termination" and frowned
upon saying that it eras uncalled for
particularly of the service that
is being government counsei.
9. ‘”i’he–. ‘ _ ieittzation was one involving the
appoiritnieni _ oi’ _ to public bodies and the
AA agpoinfinente purely political. It is not as though
‘ either-.tf1e’siiit;=ibiIity or qualification or merit of the persons
. intoyinor are they examined for their performance
in The appointment itself is pnrely political and
‘ [7 pleasure of the governor, in the sense that it can be
‘ terminated at any time within three years.
10. While Sri Hatti, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the circular having been issued in the context
of change of government and the state being broughtteider
the Presiderifls rule and therefore submits that
is bad in law etc., even this being purely a K
and not involving any right of ‘V
need for this court to enter iipofiticsi
examining such action on the T 14 of
the Constitution of II1di.«’Ai~14_.. fl~ 14esse111:ial1y
mandates the state not,.to:’_ iffom person to
person “of’-the state,’ one dimension of the
Arficle 14’i’is” to the state to desist
from arbitraI”y’ac’tionV-. is how arbitrary actions are
else These are normally in the
T. benefit in favour of a citizen or in the
i sense of any existing right. The very
-. to the office being at the discretion and during
it of the govertunent, such matters carmot be
‘j”exe,Irii11ed on the same touchstone.
We
10
11. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the rfagiiio”
in the case 9:” smzrmxrm vmzggmz teapot” be
invoked for the examination of eIii®Ié”it’S’-{if
particularly in the wake faets
commissioner has e11_1y from
persons like pet:itionq§1*si7 T ._ is yet to come
and at this stage; the this court.
Even if acting as per the
directio:r2s.r.o f then, no thxeatenned
action ihas es against the petitioner and
therefore Iie..;r1eed’ 1r._of1i1*t1§er examine the merits of this writ
‘V the interim order of stay granted earlier
153115 wjitfgeiifion is vacated and the writ petifion itseif is
L V .§1ismsiseé;_
Sd/–A
Iudqe