Karnataka High Court
Sri Swamygowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
WP No. 27573 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27573 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SWAMYGOWDA
S/O MARILINGIAHAGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
HUNSUR TOWN
PLANNING AUTHORITY DISTRICT MYSORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
DEVELOPMENT MS BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-1
Digitally 2. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
signed by
KIRAN HUNSUR, BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
KUMAR R HUNSUR DISTRICT MYSORE -571105
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 3. THE HUNSUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA
HUNSUR,
BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
HUNSUR, DISTRICT MYSORE-571105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI.B.S.TOTAD., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO RESOLUTION ITEM
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
WP No. 27573 of 2024
NO. 88 IN MEETING OF THE R-2 TO BE HELD ON 10.10.24,
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is challenging the resolution of the
Municipality by which the Municipality has decided to
nominate another councillor in place of the
petitioner, who had been nominated earlier as a
member of the Planning Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend
that once a councillor is nominated to be a member
of the Planning Authority under Section 4-C (iii)(a) of
the Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961
(the 'KTCP' Act), he has an indefeasible right to
continue to be a member of the planning authority
until he ceases to be a member of the local authority.
3. In other words, it is the case of the petitioner that
once he has been nominated to be a member of the
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
Planning Authority he has an unrestricted right to
continue till he is a member of that local authority. In
my view, this argument cannot be accepted.
4. Section 4-C categorically states that every Planning
Authority constituted under sub-section (1) of
Section 4-C shall consist of the members mentioned
therein, Clause (iii) (a) reads as follows:
"iii) representatives of local bodies
composed as follows. -
(a) in the case of a planning area in which
only one local authority has jurisdiction, a
representative nominated by that local
authority from among the members of that
authority and the Chief Executive Officer of
that local authority;".
5. As could be seen from the above, the representative
of the Local Body, who are nominated by that local
authority have a right to be a part of the planning
authority. However, this power of nomination would
always be the prerogative of the local authority. The
local authority can always withdraw its nomination
and make a fresh nomination. There is nothing in the
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
Section 4-C which indicates that the local authority
does not possess the power to withdraw the
nomination that it had made earlier and make a fresh
nomination.
6. The argument of the learned counsel that because
Section 4-D (2) assures the member nominated to
continue to be a member of the Planning Authority
till he continues to be a member of the local body is
concerned cannot be an acceptable argument.
7. Section 4-D(2) basically clarifies that a member of
the local authority even on nomination cannot
continue beyond his term as a member of that local
authority.
8. In other words, the membership of the Planning
Authority of a member nominated by the local
authority is coterminus with his term as a member of
the local authority. This cannot therefore lead to an
inference that the power of nomination can be
exercised only once by the local authority and once a
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
nomination is made, the local authority cannot
withdraw its nomination and make a fresh
nomination .
9. In my view, therefore, the concerned Municipality
had the jurisdiction to withdraw the nomination that
it had made earlier and make a fresh nomination.
10. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel
judgment referred to in C.N.Ramaswamy's case1
will also be not applicable, since in that particular
case, this Court, was only dealing with the question
as to whether the Municipality while making a
nomination could restrict the nomination for a
particular year. This Court has not considered the
question as to whether the Municipality has the
power to withdraw a nomination and therefore the
said decision would be inapplicable to the facts of
this case.
C.N.Ramaswamy Vs. Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur - AIR 1988
KAR 168
NC: 2025:KHC:3823
11. In my view, the provisions of the Act makes it
abundantly clear that the power to make a
nomination and withdraw the nomination is always
inherent in the power of appointment and that
cannot be scuttled by the nominate member by
contending that he has a right to be a member of the
Planning Authority until he is a member of the local
authority.
12. This petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR
