P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) A small matter like the granting of leave to a sitting Councillor by the 2nd respondent-town Municipal Council, Ankola is the subject-matter of this writ petition. the petitioner Ramesh V. Kini, was an elected member of the town Municipal council of Ankola. it is common ground that for three consecutive meetings of the municipal Council held on 28th December, 1991, 30th January, 1991 and 25th february, 1991 he was not present but in respect of the meeting scheduled on the 25th of February, 1991, he did send a leave note as per Annexure-A requesting the municipal Council for leave of absence and permission to stay away from the meeting held on the 25th February 1991 because he was unwell and had been advised to take bed rest. He also. sent a doctor's certificate, copy of which is produced at Annexure-B. But it would appear, the leave application was actually received by the municipality on the 26th February, 1991. But then the petitioner states in the writ petition that a messenger through whom the leave note was sent for the personal delivery to the Municipal Council on 25-2-1991 who asked to deliver it the next day and that is the reason why his leave application did not reach the Municipal Council on the date of meeting i. e. , 25th February, 1991. ( 2 ) MR. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the a fore said allegations made in the writ petition has not been traversed in the counter-statement made on behalf of the Municipal Council. Be that as it may, let us not go into that controversy. i shall take the leave application was delivered to the Municipality only on the 26th of February, 1991. ( 3 ) THEN the fact remains in that application leave of absence to attend the meeting on the 25th February, 1991 had been sought for on the ground of incapacity of the petitioner due to ill-health. the application was also supported by a medical certificate. Now the grant or refusal of leave to a Councillor no doubt is at the discretion of the Municipal Council but exercise thereof is governed by Section 16 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). the application was also supported by a medical certificate. Now the grant or refusal of leave to a Councillor no doubt is at the discretion of the Municipal Council but exercise thereof is governed by Section 16 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). it reads:-"if any Councillor during the term for which he has been elected or appointed-absents himself from the meetings of the Municipal Council during three consecutive months except with the leave of the Municipal Council"and proviso to Clause (3) reads as under:"provided that no order shall be passed under sub-sections (2) and (3) against any councillor without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " ( 4 ) WE are now directly concerned with the said provision, which makes it clear that no Councillor shall stay-away from meetings of the Municipal Council on three successful occasions except with the leave of the Municipal Council inter alia providing for grant of leave by the Municipal Council for a period not exceeding six months and further providing that if an application for leave is made by a Councillor to the Municipal Council for seeking leave of absence and if within a month from the date of making that application, the Municipal Council fails to communicate to the councillor its decision on the application for leave, the Councillor can deem the grant of leave. the further aspect of the matter is also of considerable materiality that dealing along with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to declare the seat of the person concerned to have become vacant because of three continuous defaults by him in attending meetings without applying and obtaining leave of absence. in this case, the Deputy Commissioner has declared the petitioner's seat as having become vacant because of his absence for three consecutive meetings. that order is at Annexure-H and is presently in challenge. ( 5 ) THE provision aforesaid makes it clear that when any application for leave is made to the Municipal Council, it may at its discretion grant or refuse but it must necessarily take a decision therein one way or the other within 30 days from the date of receipt of an application for grant of leave. ( 5 ) THE provision aforesaid makes it clear that when any application for leave is made to the Municipal Council, it may at its discretion grant or refuse but it must necessarily take a decision therein one way or the other within 30 days from the date of receipt of an application for grant of leave. But if it hesitates and does not communicate its decision apropos the application for leave made by a Councillor, in that event no further action is called for and any further action taken to declare the position of the Councillor to have become vacant is also rendered otiose, as leave is in such a situation deemed to have been granted, and there will (sic) be no vacancy at all, because the Councillor would continue in the Municipal Council. ( 6 ) WHAT has happened in this case is, proceeding on the premise that the application for leave was received a day after the meeting was scheduled i. e. , the meeting has been scheduled on 26-2-1991, application seeking leave of absence having been received on the 26-2-1991, that application came to be considered at a later meeting held on 23rd March, 1991 as per Annexure-C. Learned counsel for the Municipal council tells me that the petitioner also participated in the meeting held on 23-3-1991. the proceedings on that meeting read as follows:- A perusal of the above makes it clear the Municipal Council not being in a position to take a decision as to whether the application for leave submitted to excuse the absence of the member from a meetingwhich was already over, couldbe granted or not, that question having proved vexatious for the Municipal Council to take a decision, the matter was therefore referred to the Deputy Commissioner with its views. this resolution sounded in further reaction by the Deputy Commissioner who in turn called upon the petitioner to show-cause why he should not make a declaration that his seat had become vacant. the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the petitioner passed the order at Annexure-H, taking acting under Section 16 (2) to declare the petitioner's seat as vacant. in my view, the proceedings by the Deputy commissioner was clearly a surplusage and totally unwarranted. the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the petitioner passed the order at Annexure-H, taking acting under Section 16 (2) to declare the petitioner's seat as vacant. in my view, the proceedings by the Deputy commissioner was clearly a surplusage and totally unwarranted. the duty to take a decision on a sitting Councillor's application for leave and to communicate the decision of the Municipal Council in that behalf is cast not on the Deputy Commissioner but on the Municipal Council under proviso to Section 16 (2), which i have excerpted hereinbefore. the proviso to that section also lays a duty on the concerned municipal Council to communicate its decision on the leave application within 30 days from the receipt of the application for leave, making it clear, that non-communication of its decision within the 30 days dead line would result in the law giving a quietus to this controversy indicating that leave in such circumstance is deemed to have been granted. As i see from the various resolutions of the Municipal Council and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the Municipal Council has not so far taken any decision on the leave application filed by the petitioner. But nonetheless a decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner declaring the petitioner's position in the Municipal Council to have become vacant. it is one thing if the municipal Council had rejected the petitioner's leave note submitted to it on the 26th February, 1991 on the ground that it was after the event and therefore it cannot be entertained. that is not the stand which the Municipal Council has taken nor do i see any ground or any embargo under the law to grant leave (sic) attending a meeting already held and over by the date of the leave application. if the application for leave was granted then it goes back and validates the absence of the member on the date of the meeting. therefore, if the Municipal Council did not reject the leave note because the man had applied for leave a day after the meeting, its hands is thereunder tied, it can (sic) take (sic) a stand at all. therefore, if the Municipal Council did not reject the leave note because the man had applied for leave a day after the meeting, its hands is thereunder tied, it can (sic) take (sic) a stand at all. ( 7 ) THE position therefore is the leave absence applied for the meeting dated 25-2-1991 having neither been rejected nor granted by the Municipal Council within the stipulated period of 30 days enjoined under the proviso to Section 16 (2) (c), the said application in the eye of law must be deemed to have been granted. if that is so, then it cannot be said that the petitioner Kini had absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the Municipal Council and had therefore earned a disqualification that prevented him from holding his position as a Municipal councillor (sic) leading to a declaration of vacancy by the Deputy Commissioner acting under Section 16 (2) of the Act. the order of the Deputy Commissioner declaring that a vacancy had arisen when in actual fact there was no vacancy at all, it palpably erroneous. ( 8 ) IN the light of this conclusion, it becomes clear that the writ petition should succeed and be allowed. Mr. Jalisatgi, learned counsel for the Municipal Council says as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal under section 16 of the Act, (sic) to the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner should be denied relief (sic ). Ordinarily it would be so but then the power of this Court is not always trammelled by the existence of an alternative remedy which may be even efficacious but it is not inflexible rule that whenever an alternative remedy exists, this court should withhold relief. the doors of this Court cannot be shut against one who has been dealt with in a manifestly in outrageous fashion by the authorities riding rough shod without paying heed to the provisions of the statute. i therefore do not regard this objection of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy as a bar to accept this writ petition and hence reject the same. in the result, therefore, i make the following: ( 9 ) RULE issued and affirmed. the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the order of the Deputy commissioner at Annexure-H stands quashed. the petitioner will continue as member of the town Municipal Council, Ankola, without let or hindrance. in the result, therefore, i make the following: ( 9 ) RULE issued and affirmed. the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. the order of the Deputy commissioner at Annexure-H stands quashed. the petitioner will continue as member of the town Municipal Council, Ankola, without let or hindrance. Sri R. Jagadish, learned High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance without four weeks from today. --- *** --- .