Karnataka High Court
Rajanna vs Town Municipal Council on 15 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.201086 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.201056 OF 2025(LB-ELE)
IN WP NO.201086/2025:
BETWEEN:
RAJANNA S/O NARAYANAKAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT TMC SINDAGI,
R/O DHARMAPPA NARAYANAKAR GALLI,
SINDAGI, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586 128.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN (BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE CHIEF OFFICER, SINDAGI, TQ.SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYPUR-586 128.
2. SHANTAVEER
S/O MALLAPPA MANAGULI,
MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O 2757, SAI NIVAS, MOGLAI LAYOUT,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
3. SHREESHAIL BEERGOUND,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
4. SRI. TAMBOLI BADSHYA @ BASHASAB KALESAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
5. SMT. UMADEVI SULPI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
6. SMT. DONNUR BAGAVVA BASAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
7. SMT. MULLA HUSEIN ABID
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
8. SMT. KALAVATI KADAKOL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
9. BASAVARAJ YARNAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
10. PATIL SHARANAGOUD MADIVALAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
11. BANKALGI GOLLALAPPA NINGAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
12. HANUMANTH SUNGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
13. CHOUR SANDEEP BHEENAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ.SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. H. VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GANESH S. KALBURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE OF RESPONDENT
NO.1 DATED 11.04.2025 BEARING NO. ¥ÀĸÀ¹A/Pˤì¯ï
±ÁSÉ/C.«/2025-26 ANNEXURE-D.
IN WP NO. 201056 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SHANTAVEERAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT TMC SINDANUR
R/O GURKRUPA NIVAS SOMPUR ROAD,
NEAR AMBEDAKAR HIGH SCHOOL, SINDAGI
TQ. SINDAGI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586128.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
AND:
1. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE CHIEF OFFICER, SINDAGI
TQ. SINDAGI DIST. VIJAYPUR -586128.
2. SHANTAVEER
S/O MALLAPPA MANAGULI,
MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O 2757, SAI NIVAS, MOGLAI LAYOUT,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
3. SHREESHAIL BEERGOUND,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
4. SRI. TAMBOLI BADSHYA @ BASHASAB KALESAB,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
5. SMT. UMADEVI SULPI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR,
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
6. SMT. DONNUR BAGAVVA BASAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128.
7. SMT. MULLA HUSEIN ABID
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
8. SMT. KALAVATI KADAKOL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
9. BASAVARAJ YARNAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
10. PATIL SHARANAGOUD MADIVALAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
11. BANKALGI GOLLALAPPA NINGAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
12. HANUMANTH SUNGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ. SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
13. CHOUR SANDEEP BHEENAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: COUNCILOR
R/O MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR SINDAGI,
TQ.SINDAGI AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 128
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R13)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE NOTICE OF RESPONDENT
DTD. 02-04-2025 BEARING NO. ¥ÀĸÀ¹A/Pˤì¯ï ±ÁSÉ/C.«/2025-26 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
WP No. 201086 of 2025
C/W WP No. 201056 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In these writ petitions, petitioner in 201056/2025 is
challenging notice dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-D) issued by
respondent No.1 and in WP No.201086/2025, petitioner is
assailing the notice dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure-D) issued by
respondent No.1. The impugned notices are issued for the
purpose of election to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha
of Municipality of respondent No.1 - Sindagi.
2. In W.P.No.201056/2025, it is the case of the
petitioner that, the petitioner has been elected as a Counselor
of the respondent No.1, which consisting of 23 elected
members apart from the nominated members by the State.
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition by
challenging the notice dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-D), that,
the said notice dated 02.04.2025 has been issued, calling upon
no confidence motion against the petitioner and to conduct
election on 11.04.2025 as the same is contrary to Section
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
42(9) of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964 (herein after
referred to as 'Act') and therefore, sought for interference of
this Court.
3. In W.P.No.201086/2025, the petitioner is assailing
the fresh Special General Body meeting dated 11.04.2025
(Annexure-D), wherein, the respondent-Municipality by
following the order dated 09.04.2025 in W.A.No.200112/2025,
had fixed the date of no confidence motion and to conduct the
election on 16.04.2025, it is contended that, same is
impermissible in law as the said dated fixed for no confidence
motion on 16.04.2025 is contrary to the judgment of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench
No.8288/2017 disposed off on 25.04.2017, and accordingly, it
is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that, issuance of corrigendum dated 11.04.2025 is contrary to
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court referred to above as
well as it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is illegality in the original notice dated 02.04.2025
and the same cannot be continued by issuance of the
corrigendum dated 11.04.2025, as the illegality will be
continued by the respondent-Municipality by issuing the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
corrigendum. Accordingly, it is submitted that, interference is
called for in these writ petitions.
4. Per contra, Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned
Senior counsel representing the private respondent Nos.2 to 13
in W.P.No.201086/2025 contended that, by referring to the
order dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure-R3) and order dated
23.04.2025 which is at (Annexure-R4), passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No.10588/2025 and contended that,
there is no illegality in issuance of the corrigendum dated
11.04.2025 and same shall merge with the orders passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, sought for dismissal
of the writ petitions.
5. It is also submitted by the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents that even if there is any
flaw in procedure for issuance of notice by way of issuance of
corrigendum and in this regard, he refers to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Narasimhiah V/s
H.C. Singri Gowda and others reported in AIR 1966 SCC
330 and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.160/2025 dated 06.03.2025 and contended that,
even if there is illegality committed by the authorities insofar as
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
calculating days as per proviso to Section 42(9) of the Act and
same has been rectified by way of issuance of corrigendum and
accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. It is also submitted by learned Senior counsel that
pursuant to order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
election has been conducted on 16.04.2025 and the results
have been declared, which is subject to the result of the writ
petitions and by referring to the said aspects, it is submitted by
learned Senior counsel that the petitioners herein have lost the
confidence of the Members/Councilors of Sindagi Municipality
and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. In addition to this, the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents refers to the order dated
09.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.200112/2025 and submitted
that, a submission has been made by the learned counsel
representing for Municipality for issuance of corrigendum notice
and same has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and in that view of the matter, nothing survives for
consideration in these petitions.
8. Sri. D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel appearing for
respondent-Municipality refers to the submission made before
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
the Division Bench referred to above, and pursuant to the
same, the corrigendum has been issued and therefore, it is
submitted that the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
9. Learned counsel representing the respondent-
Municipality has also places reliance on the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in W.A.200087/2022, disposed of on
22.07.2022 and by referring to paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the
said judgment, submitted that, fixing the date for issuance of
notice is only a directory in nature and therefore, sought for
dismissal of the petitions.
10. Having taken note of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, before questions to
be answered in these writ petitions is with regard to validity of
notice dated 02.04.2025 and the corrigendum notice dated
11.04.2025 issued by the respondent-Municipality for
conducting fresh election to the post of Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of Sindagi Municipality as the members of the
counselors have pointed out about no confidence motion
against the petitioners herein. In the backdrop of these
aspects, the petitioners herein have challenged both the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
original notice dated 02.04.2025 and corrigendum notice dated
11.04.2025.
11. In the notice dated 02.04.2025, the Municipality
has initiated no confidence motion against the petitioners
pursuant to the representation made by the councilors and also
for fixing the date of no confidence and to elect the new
President and Vice-President on 11.04.2025. The said notices
are challenged before this Court in these petitions.
12. The interim order has been passed by this Court in
W.P.No.201056/2025. The Division bench of this Court by
order dated 09.04.2025, according to the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality,
comes to the conclusion that there is no impediment for
issuance of corrigendum to conduct the election as per the date
fixed in the notice, as on 16.04.2025. The said order was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per
Annexures-R3 and R4 respectively. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the order dated 16.04.2025, held as under:
"In the meantime, the order of the
Single Judge and the impugned order of the
Division Bench may also be filed after
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
obtaining true copies from the official website
of the High Court. It has been informed that
the meeting of 'No Confidence' which is
scheduled for today has already been
commenced.
As an ad-interim measure, it is provided
that the meeting shall continue and the result
of the same be declared but the same will not
be given effect till the next date fixed i.e. 23rd
April, 2025."
13. In the order dated 23.04.2025, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
"Considering the submissions noted
above, we dispose of this petition while
directing that the interim order dated 16th
April, 2025 shall continue till the disposal of
the writ petition by the High Court.
The High Court is requested upon an
appropriate application being filed by the
parties for early disposal of the writ petition to
consider the same."
14. Taking into consideration the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.04.2025 and 23.04.2025, in
which, confirming the order passed by the Division Bench of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
this Court, wherein, the submission made by the learned
counsel representing the respondent-Municipality for issuance
of the fresh corrigendum has been accepted. In that view of
the matter, I am of the view that, the first contention raised by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to
the fact that issuance of original notice and corrigendum suffers
from Section 42 (9) of the Act, cannot be accepted. In this
connection, I have gone through the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200037/2022, wherein, this
Court at paragraph 17 has held that proviso to Section 49 of
the Act is of directory in nature. It is also forthcoming from the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.160/2025, wherein, this Court at paragraph 6.5.3 to
6.5.6 held as follows:
"6.5.3 A thing irregularly done is not
regularly done. It is not in conformity of rule
or principle. The concepts "illegal", "irregular"
and "procedurally irregular", are often
understood in terms of their degree which
they bear to be not in conformity with rule of
particular course of action. The illegality is a
breach of law in substantive way and in its
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
high degree which will taint and vitiate the
action.
6.5.4 One who commits "illegality" has to
be denied the assertion of his right and he
stands disentitled to relief in law. Irregularity,
as noticed, is breach of procedure of rule or
some orderly conduct but not of such nature
which could be said to be in the nature of a
debilitating defect. It is pardonable in law.
The concept of procedural irregularity is
indicative of lapse of minor nature in
procedure which could not affect adversely
rights of a party, nor would exceptionally
reverse the obligation of the order side."
15. Taking into consideration the declaration of law
made by the Full Bench of this Court as well as the Division
Bench, it is expedient to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.14 and 15 in the case of
K.Narasimhaiah stated supra, wherein, it is held as follows:
"14. It is necessary also to remember that
the main object of giving the notice is to make
it possible for the Councillors to so arrange
their other business as to be able to attend
the meeting. For an ordinary general meeting
the notice provided is of seven clear days.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
That is expected to give enough time for the
purpose. But a lesser period-of three clear
days-is considered sufficient for "special
general meetings generally. The obvious
reason for providing a shorter period of such
meetings is that these are considered more
important meetings and Councillors are
expected to make it convenient to attend
these meetings even at the cost of some
inconvenience to themselves. Where the
special general meeting is to dispose of some
matter of great urgency it is considered that a
period of even less than three clear days'
notice would be sufficient.
15. A consideration of the object of these
provisions and the manner in which the object
is sought to be achieved indicates that while
the legislature did intend that ordinarily the
notice as mentioned should be given it could
not have intended that the fact that the notice
is of less than the period mentioned in the
section and thus the Councillors had less time
than is ordinarily considered reasonable to
arrange his other business to be free to attend
the meeting, should have the serious result of
making the proceedings of the meeting
invalid."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2735
16. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court refers to above,
the flaw made in the notice dated 02.04.2025, same has been
rectified by in corrigendum noted dated 11.04.2025, which has
been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well as
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, I am of the view that,
no interference is called for in these petitions. Accordingly, the
judgment referred to by the learned counsel representing the
petitioners in Surendra Kumar Yadav stated supra, is not
applicable to the facts of the present case, as issuance of
corrigendum has been made pursuant to the order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court, which came to be confirmed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMP
CT:SI
