HUSSAINAPPA JAGALI, S/O. MALLAMMA DEVADASI, PRESIDENT, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant herein approached this Court in writ petition to quash the notice dated 4.1.2010 issued by Respondent No. 2/the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Manvi, Raichur. The same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) IN brief the facts that lead to the filing of the appeal are as under: The Town Municipal Council of Manvi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council') has 18 councillors and the Appellant herein is the erstwhile President of the said Council. 16 out of 18 members gave a memorandum dated 23.11.2009 to the President of the Council to call for a meeting to discuss No Confidence Motion' against the Appellant. The Appellant sent letters to the Deputy Commissioner. Raichur; Chief Officer of the Council and Assistant Commissioner, Raichur intimating them that signatures of the 16 members who are said to have signed 'No Confidence Motion' seems to be not the signatures of the said members. On 14.12.2009, meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' under the Chairmanship of the Appellant was convened. This was by a notice dated 5.12.2009. However no meeting was held on 14.12.2009 as there were quarrels among the members and the 'No Confidence Motion' meeting was postponed. Again a notice came to be issued on 4.1.2010 by the Chief Officer of the Council calling for the meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' to be held on 16.1.2010. This meeting was proposed to be held under the chairmanship of Vice President. This notice dated 4.1.2010 was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IMPUGNING the orders of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed contending that inspite of citing the decision in the case of Shivamma v. Deputy Commissioner Tumkur 2003 (2) KLJ 71, the said judgment was not considered and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed; that the order of the learned Single Judge indirectly over rules the judgment; that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the procedure under Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') relied upon by the learned Single Judge would come into play only after the compliance of Sections 47(2) and 47(3) of the Act. Therefore in the absence of compliance of Section 47(3) of the Act, the notice ought to have been quashed.