Karnataka High Court
Dr. Shantaveer vs The State Of Karataka And Ors on 22 December, 2021
Bench: M.I.Arun
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.202103/2021 (LB-RES)
Between:
Dr.Shantaveer S/o Mallappa Managuli,
Aged about 45 years, Occ : President,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Anand Talkies Road,
Tq. Sindagi, Dist : Vijayapura - 586 128.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Ganesh S.Kalburgi and
Sri Deshpande G.V Advocates)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Director,
Department of Municipal Administration,
M.S.Building, Bengaluru - 01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Vijayapur, Gopalpur Galli,
Tq. & Dist : Vijayapura - 586 101.
3. Chief Officer,
Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindagi, Dist :Vijayapura - 586 128.
4. Badhasha @ Bashasab,
S/o Kaesab Tamboli,
2
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
5. Smt.Umadevi Sharanappa Kadakola,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
6. Smt.Kalavati Anil Kadakola,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
7. Basavaraja S/o Chandramappa Yaranal,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
8. Hanamant S/o Yamanappa Sunagar,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
9. Smt.Khairun Bee D/o Mahammed Haneef Natikar,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
10. Smt.Parvati W/o Gurappa Durgi,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
3
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
11. Bhagavva W/o Basappa Donur,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
12. Sandeep s/o Bheemappa Chowra,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
13. Rajanna S/o Dharmanna Narayanakar,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
14. Gollalappa S/o Ningappa Banakalgi,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
15. Sharanagouda S/o Madivalappa Pati,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
16. Smt.Mahadevi W/o Bhimanna Naikodi,
Age : Major, Occ: Member,
Town Municipal Council, Sindagi,
R/o Town Municipal Council,
Tq : Sindhagi, Vijayapura - 586 128.
... Respondents
(By Sri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, HCGP for R1 & R2;
4
Sri Sanganabasava B.Patil, Advocate for R3;
Smt.Hema L.K Advocate for R4 to R9 & R11 to R16;
R10 served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue appropriate writ
more so in the nature of certiorari and to quash the notice
dated 06.11.2021 issued by respondent No.3 in file
No.PÀ.æ ¸ÀA.¥ÀĸÀ¹A/C.C/«.¸Á.¸À/ /2021-22 the copy of which is at
Annexure-F and issue any other writ, direction or order as
it deems fit to this, under the facts and circumstances of
the case.
This petition coming on for Further Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is the President of Town Municipal
Council, Sindagi, Vijayapur District. 'No Confidence Motion'
has been sought to be moved against the petitioner by
more than 1/3rd of the members of the Councillors. In this
regard, a request was made to the petitioner to convene a
meeting as contemplate under Section 47(2) of the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (referred to as the 'Act'
for short). Simultaneously, a request was also made to the
Chief Officer (respondent No.3 herein) to convene a
meeting. No representation could be made to the Vide
President as he was disqualified and there was no Vice
President. The petitioner did not call for the meeting as
mandated under Section 47 of the Act. Left with no
alternative, 1/3rd of the Members have requested to call for
a meeting and as respondent No.3 was not sure whether
meeting can be called in the light of code of conduct being
in existence due to an MLC election, delayed the same and
finally the respondents issued another written request on
04.11.2021 to call for a meeting. Pursuant to the same,
the meeting was fixed on 16.11.2021. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
2. The 'No Confidence Motion' was permitted to
go ahead by the order of this Court subject to result of the
writ petition. It is stated the meeting has been held and
'No Confidence Motion' has been put to vote. However,
results have not been announced due to pendency of writ
petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the act of
respondent No.3 in calling the meeting to consider 'No
Confidence Motion' against him is in violation of
Sections 42(9) and 47 of the Act.
4. Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities
Act, 1964 reads as under :-
"(9) Every president and every vice-
president of a municipal council shall forthwith be
deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution
expressing want of confidence in him is passed by
a [majority total number of councillors having
voting right and by a majority of not less than two-
thirds of the councillors having voting right present
and voting] at a special general meeting convened
for the purpose:
Provided that no such resolution shall be
moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by
not less than one-third of the [total number of
councillors having voting right] and at least ten
days' notice has been given of the intention to
move the resolution:
Provided further that where a resolution
expressing want of confidence in any president or
vice-president has been considered and negatived
by a municipal council, a similar resolution in
respect of the same president or vice-president
shall not be given notice of or moved within one
year from the date of the decision of the municipal
council."
5. Section 47 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act,
1964 reads as under :-
47. Meeting.--(1) The municipal council
shall ordinarily hold at least one meeting in every
month for the transaction of business, 1[which shall
be called an ordinary general meeting.]
(2) The president may, whenever he thinks
fit, and shall, upon the written request of not less
than one-third of the whole number of councillors
and for a date not more than fifteen days after the
presentation of such request, call a special general
meeting.
(3) If the president fails to call a special
general meeting as provided in sub-section (2), the
vice-president or one-third of the whole number of
councillors may call such meeting for a day not
more than thirty days after the presentation of
such request and require the chief officer or the
municipal commissioner to give notice to the
councillors and take such action as may be
necessary to convene the meeting.
(4) Any meeting may be adjourned until the
next or any subsequent date, and an adjourned
meeting may be further adjourned in like manner."
6. The petitioner places reliance on the decision
of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.10033/2010. In Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the said
judgment reads as under :-
"10. Having regard to the various decisions
referred to above, one has to analyse the facts of
the case with reference to the provisions of the Act.
Sub-Section(2) of 47 of the Act provides that after
receipt of the request of the 1/3rd members of the
total number of concillors, the President has to all
for a Special General Meeting for a date not more
than 15 days from the date of such request.
11. In the present case, admittedly the first
date of notice is 23.11.2009 but the appellant has
not called for the meeting and he had sent letter to
the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and others
informing that there is some anomalies with the
signatures of the 16 members out of the 18
councillors in the so called request to move 'No
Confidence Motion'. The time to convene the
meeting as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 47 of
the act was till 8.12.2009. Now the 2nd respondent
calls for a meeting by notice dated 5.12.2009 fixing
the date of meeting as 14.12.2009 and the said
meeting did not transact any business as thee was
commotion. According to the appellant, the
meeting called by the CEO by notice dated
5.12.2009 is without jurisdiction. Sub-Section (2)
of Section 47 of the Act contemplates that such
exercise of jurisdiction could be by the President
alone.
12. If no meeting is called for on or before
8.12.2009, the exercise of authority as
contemplated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 47
of the Act comes into play i.e., either the Vice
President or 1/3rd of the whole number of
councilors may call for such meeting to move 'No
Confidence Motion' and such request has to be
made within 30 days from the date of original
request i.e., 23.11.2009 to the Chief Officer of the
Municipal Commissioner to give notice to the
concillors and take such action as may be
necessary to convene a meeting. Sub-Section (4)
of Section 47 of the Act says any meeting may be
adjourned until the next date or any subsequent
date."
7. Based on the aforementioned decision, it is
contended that if the petitioner did not agree within fifteen
days from 30.09.2021, i.e., fifteen days from the date of
request to conduct a meeting, the aggrieved persons
should have convened a meeting within fifteen days from
15.10.2021. Not having done so calling it on 16.11.2021 is
an violation of Section 47 of the Act and the meeting
cannot be held.
8. The leaned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.4 to 9 and 11 to 16, who are Councillors submits that
they have moved the 'No Confidence Motion' against the
petitioner herein in accordance with law and that it was
due to the mistake of respondent No.3 the meeting has
not been called within time and that the petitioner does
not enjoy the confidence of majority of the Councillors and
if he is allowed to continue it would be against the spirit of
the democracy.
9. She would further submits that if for any
reason the Court were to conclude that the meeting called
by respondent No.3 at their behest is in violation of
Section 47 of the Act, they may be permitted to
immediately move the necessary resolution and call for a
fresh meeting.
10. It is her further submission that the petitioner
does not want to act on the request as the intended
meeting is being called to move a 'No Confidence Motion'
against him and giving a fresh notice to him is futile.
11. Admittedly, the impugned notice dated
06.11.2021 calling for Special General meeting on
16.11.2021 is in violation of Section 47 of the Act and is
liable to be set aside. Consequently, the decision taken
pursuant to the same needs to be set aside. However,
under the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be
held that setting aside the meeting dated 16.11.2021 does
not amount to No Confidence Motion against the petitioner
being negative as per the proviso to sub-section (9) of
Section 42 of the Act and it is hereby clarified that the
aggrieved Councillors including respondent Nos.4 to 9 and
11 to 16 have the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings as
contemplated under Section 47 of the Act. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned notice dated 06.11.2021
issued by respondent no.3 vide Annexure-F
to the writ petition calling for special
general meeting to be conducted by Sindagi
Town Municipal Council is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the decision taken in the
meeting on 16.11.2021 is hereby nullified;
and 11 to 16 and other Councillors of
Sindagi Town Municipal Council to move a
fresh 'No Confidence Motion' and seek
convening of a meeting as contemplated
under Section 47 of the Act.
(iv) No order as to costs.
(v) Pending I.A.No.1/2021 for declaration of
result does not survive for consideration
and it stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE
sn/HKH
