GOWRAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are the President, Vice-President and members of the 3rd respondent-City Municipal Council have challenged the legality and validity of the order o1 Supersession passed by the first respondent dated 9. 5. 2000 as per Annexure-Q in exercise of its powers under Section 316 of the Karnataka municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'kmc Act' 1964) and appointing the 2nd respondent as the Administrator in the place of the elected body of the third respondent council in exercise of Its power under section 3l5 (1) (b) of the Act for a period of six months which was published in the Special Gazette dated 25. 5. 2000 and have sought to quash the same urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) CERTAIN relevant facts which are necessary for the purpose ofconsidering the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties are stated hereunder petitioners had filed W. P. No. 38182/99 seeking for Issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-D dated 9. 12. 1998 Issued by the first respondent urging various legal grounds. This Court vide its order dated 7. 2,2000 after hearing the parties passed the following order

(3.) THE first respondent/state Government has filed a detailedcounter statement justifying the impugned order passed by the first respondent. It is contended by Sri D'sa, learned Government advocate that the various grounds urged in the Writ Petition and the averments made on behalf of the petitioners are wholly untenable in law. The learned Counsel has also produced documents and also the translated copies of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice and he would submit that the first respondent has acted deligently and discharged his statutory duty while exercising his power conferred upon him under Section 316 of the KMC Act, 1964. It is contended that the statutory requirement as contemplated under section 316 of the KMC Act, 1964 of issuing charge sheet and giving opportunity to the petitioners has been complied with and the explanations offered by the petitioners has been duty considered with reference to the documents produced by them and the documents which were secured from the 3rd respondent-Town municipal Council; the first respondent has elaborately considered each one of the charges; and recorded his reasons in the preamble portion of the order as required under the provisions of Section 316 of the KMC Act, 1964 and recorded the findings holding that out of 20 charges 17 charges are proved. Therefore it is contended that this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded on disputed questions of fact in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and further urged that the impugned order is passed in the public interest and public good; though it has resulted in the duly elected councilors being replaced by the Administrator, such step as absoutely necessary on account of vide spread illegality indulged in as has been satisfactorily established from the records and also enquires made in that regard; the impugned order is not with any malafides as alleged in the writ petition and that therefore this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere with the impugned order on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition. Further, with regard to the inaction on the part of the first respondent in not communicating the order within 15 days to facilitate the petitioners to approach this Court and obtain appropriate orders it is contended that it is a bonafide mistake but not a malafide one; therefore the contentions urged jn this behalf is devoid of merits and the same has to be rejected. It'. is further contended that the first respondent taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the case the documentary evidence on record and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners has passed the impugned order which is neither illegal nor arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified in law and as such it is submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.