T. NARASIMHAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a writ of quo warranto questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the respondent No.4-Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (for short 'the Planning Authority').

(2.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The present writ petition is filed in the form of a public interest litigation questioning the appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner claims that the State has framed Rules for appointment of a Chairman and Members of the Planning Authority. It is contended that there is absolute violation of the said Rules and therefore, the persons who are unsuitable to the post and are not qualified are being appointed as Chairman of the Planning Authority. The petitioner has specifically contended that just prior to appointment, the respondent No.3 has changed his address. The petitioner has further seriously disputed the claim made by the respondent No.3 as a social worker. Specific malafides are attributed and a contention is taken that the respondent No.3 is appointed as a Chairman on the recommendation letter written by the MLA who is also the Political Secretary to the Chief Minister of the State. The petitioner has also alleged that one more MLA who is also the Minister for Revenue and close relative of respondent No.3 has also made recommendation for appointment of respondent No.3 as the Chairman of the Planning Authority.

(3.) On these set of allegations, the petitioner contends that the appointment runs contrary to the Rules and procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). It is alleged that the respondent No.3 does not possess any of the qualifications contemplated under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965') and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking writ of quo warranto.