Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 846 (KAR)

SAVITRI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-10-13

N.K.JAIN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2003
V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by writ petitioner in W. P. No. 29577 of 2003 is directed against the order dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows: the appellant filed the writ petition alleging that she is the President of the Town Pahchayat, Siddapur, Uttara Kannada District (hereinafter called as 'town Panchayat') arraigned as respondent 3 in the writ petition. It is stated that Town Panchayat comprises of 13 elected Councillors, 3 nominated members and Member of Parliament and Legislative assembly, totalling to 18. A requisition signed by 10 Councillors was submitted to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. The chief Officer did not issue notice to MP and MLA. Notices were issued to councillors and nominated members. In the meeting presided over by vice-President, no confidence motion against petitioner was passed by 10 Councillors voting in favour of the motion as per the proceedings of meeting Annexure-D, dated 23-6-2003. Being aggrieved by said resolution, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court contending that despite the request made by the petitioner no notice of meeting was issued to MLA and MP who have right to vote and the resolution was not supported by 2/3rd members present as according to the petitioner 2/3rd of total members would be 12 and even otherwise 2/3rd of 14 members would be 11 and wherefore, the resolution was not supported by requisite number of members and hence is liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge by his order dated 30-6-2003 negatived the contentions of the petitioner and held that no confidence motion had been validly passed in accordance with law as it was supported by 2/3rd of Councillors present, as the motion was supported by 10 members out of 11 members present and there was no material to show that no notice was issued to MP and MLA apart from the statement of the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed this appeal. Impleading application was filed to implead applicants as respondents 4 to 13 in this appeal which is opposed by the petitioner and with the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Jayakumar S. Patil submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition as it cannot be disputed that no notice was issued to mp and MLA who are members of the Town Panchayat entitled to vote and hence entire proceeding is vitiated and no confidence motion is not supported by 2/3rd members of the Town Panchayat which would come to 12 as total number of members is 18 and even otherwise 2/3rd of members present would come to 11 as 14 members were present and motion is supported by 10 members only. He has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Raees Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh and others and the decision of this Court in Shambugowda v State of Karnataka and Others and Shanthakumar and Another v City Municipal council, Chickmagalur3 and submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and the impugned resolution is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) SRI B. V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for impleading applicants, submitted that out of 11 Councillors who were present in meeting on 23-6-2003, 10 have supported the no confidence motion, which would constitute 2/3rd of Councillors, excluding the nominated members who have no right to vote and there is no material to show that MP and MLA were not notified. Even otherwise, their presence would not have materially affected the validity of the resolution and 'councillors' would mean only duly elected Councillors as held by the division Bench of this Court in Smt. Chandubi and Others v Deputy commissioner, Chitradurga and Others and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error or illegality so as to call for interference in this appeal. ( 7 ) SRI R. G. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3, submitted that meeting was held in accordance with law and that no confidence motion was validly passed and hence the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. ( 8 ) WE have given anxious consideration to the contention of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record and perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsels for the parties to find out as to whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge calls for interference in this appeal. ( 9 ) IT is not disputed that Town Panchayat (respondent 3) comprises of 13 elected Councillors and 3 nominated members. In view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, MP and MLA would also be members. Therefore, total number of members would be 18. It is also not in dispute that resolution was moved by requisite number of Councillors and in the meeting specially convened on 23-6- 2003, 11 elected Councillors and 3 nominated members were present and motion of no confidence against the petitioner was supported by 10 elected Councillors. It is not disputed that nominated members have no right to vote. The only point that is required to be considered is whether no confidence motion supported by 10 out of 11 Councillors present in the meeting on 23-6-2003 would be a valid resolution. The contention of the petitioner is that no notice was issued to MP and MLA and the proceeding of meeting is vitiated as they are also entitled to vote in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the TMC Act and 2/3rd of requisite members of Town Panchayat did not support the no confidence motion as according to the Counsel 2/3rd of total number of members would be 12 and 2/3rd of number of requisite members would be 10. 66 which has to be treated as 11 and wherefore the resolution is not supported by requisite number as required under Section 42 (9) of the Act. ( 10 ) RELEVANT provisions of Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') necessary for the purpose of this case are as follows: Constitution of municipal councils. 66 which has to be treated as 11 and wherefore the resolution is not supported by requisite number as required under Section 42 (9) of the Act. ( 10 ) RELEVANT provisions of Section 11 of the Karnataka Municipalities act, 1964 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') necessary for the purpose of this case are as follows: Constitution of municipal councils. (1) The municipal council shall consist of: (a) such number of directly elected Councillors specified in column (3) of the table below in respect of the municipal areas specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) thereof, namely.