High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 03 KAR CK 0005

Smt. Lokamma and Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, Dist. Raichur-584101, The Town Municipal Council, Deodurg, Tq. Deodurg, Dist: Raichur-584111, Sri Laxman Gosal and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 16 March 2012 · Citation: (2013) 1 AKR 258 : (2013) 2 KarLJ 169

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.G. Ramesh, J · A.S. Pachhapure, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No''s. 50004-07 of 2012 LB-RES

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 389 words

H.G. Ramesh, J.—By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the appeals are heard on merits and are being disposed of by this Judgment. These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 09.12.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants'' writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 83665-83668/2011. The appellants had filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by respondent No. 1-Deputy Commissioner whereunder the appellants were disqualified from being Councillors of the Town Municipal Council, Devadurga. The said order was passed in exercise of the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner u/s 4(2)(iii) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (''the Defection Act'').

2.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants had an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal u/s 16(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (''the Municipalities Act'').

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that no statutory appeal is provided under the Municipalities Act as against an order of disqualification passed u/s 4(2) of the Defection Act and hence the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

4.

We have examined the relevant provisions under both the aforesaid Acts. Section 16(3) of the Municipalities Act provides for an appeal only as against an order passed u/s 16(2) of the said Act; it does not provide for an appeal against an order passed u/s 4(2) of the Defection Act. It is also relevant to notice that sub section 2 of section 4 of the Defection Act states that an order passed under the said sub section is final. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge had erred in law in holding that a statutory appeal was provided u/s 16(3) of the Municipalities Act. as against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed u/s 4(2) of the Defection Act. In the result, we make the following order:

The order dated 09.12.201 1 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 83665-83668/2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge for consideration on merits. The writ appeals are accordingly allowed.

In view of allowing of the writ appeals, no order is necessary on I.A. Nos. 1 & 3/2012 and they stand disposed of accordingly.

Appeals Allowed.