B N SHANKARAPPA Vs. UTHANUR SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 31st July, 1991, whereby the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal setting aside the decision of the learned single Judge and held, relying on the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2564 of 1987 decided on 28th May, 1991, at Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Zila parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act) (toes not confer any power in the Deputy Commissioner to change the headquarter of by Mandal. It is this view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court that is put in issue in the present appeal. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal we may notice a few relevant facts.

(3.) The Act came into force w.e.f. 14th August, 1984. Thereafter on 16th January, 1986 a notification was issued by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power conferred by Section 4 (1) of the Act constituting a Mandal, named Mudiyannur Mandal, and located its headquarter at Mudiyannur. However, the Divisional Commissioner changed the headquarter to Uthanpur while exercising power under Section 4 (3) of the Act. Thereupon a writ petition was filed on 14th December, 1987, being Writ Petition No. 7685/ 86, challenging the said decision of the Divisional Commissioner. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court observing, if the Mandal so desires it may pass a resolution to change the headquarter from the existing place to another place whereqpon it will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to consider if he would like to exercise power under Section 4 (2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto a fresh resolution was passed whereupon the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act for change of headquarter which was published in the Government Gazette of 20th January, 1988. On the issuance of the said draft notification respondents Nos. 1 to 10 filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1888/ 88, challenging the said draft notification. That writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the resolution of the Mandal and the objections received in response to the draft notification from respondents Nos. 1 to 10 passed an order declaring Mudiyannur as the headquarter of the Mandal. To give effect to his decision, a notification under Section 4(2) of the Act was issued on 23rd July, 1988 whereby the headquarter was changed from Uthanpur to Mudiyannur. Once again the respondents Nos. 1 to 10 challenged that notification by a revision application filed under Section 4(3) of the Act. The Divisional Commissioner exercising power under the said provision dismissed the revision application whereupon a Writ Petition No. 77 of 1989 was taken to the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. An appeal was carried to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment dated 31st July, 1991 following an earlier decision in Writ Appeal No. 2564 of 1987 rendered on 28th May, 1991. It is the correctness of this decision which we are called upon to examine.