SHAIK AHAMED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) a question of some (sic) which is also of considerable interest arises in this writ petition in which the petitioner is one shaik ahamed who as recently as the 14th of august, 1990 was the elected president of city municipal council of davangerc, the second respondent herein, and was functioning as such till he was taken into custody on 21-12-1990 according to him in connection with communal disturbances in the city of davangere. It is common ground that he was thereafter released on bail on 16-7-1991, according to the petitioner after the (sic) effort made in that behalf, an aspect which does not concern me. But, in the meanwhile, the municipality found itself functioning without its president. Bui, even so, there was actually no (sic) because the vice-president was standing-in for the president and oftlciating in that office, us enjoined under Section 44 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short 'the act').

(2.) the petitioner albeit being held incommunido made two applications lo the municipal council soliciting leave of absence. The first request was for the period from 22-12-1990 lo 21-1-1991 and the second request was for a further period from 21-1-1991 to 20-2-1991. It would appear whereas the request made on the first occasion was granted by the municipal council, the second request came to be declined. Not just that when the second request for extension of leave came before the council, it chose not only to decline the request but also went on to rescind the leave granted to him on the earlier occasion, giving some reasons therefor which again is not a matter that we can possibly pursue with profit in this writ petition. The position, therefore was, the petitioner was in jail and although he asked for leave, leave was not granted and he was not in a position to attend to his work as president of the municipal council or as a matter of fact even to function as a city father.

(3.) it is in this situation an order came to be passed by the deputy commissioner, chitradurga, r-t herein, in his supervisory capacity as per annexurc-g under which he proceeded to uphold the grant of leave to the petitioner on the first occasion as made by the municipal council hut saw no reason to follow suit for the period for which extension of leave was sought for. Besides taking further notice of the fact that by the date of his order the president would have been absent for a period of more than 60 days, he went on to make a further order conceived in the interest of municipal administration (sic) that the office of the president of city municipal council had become vacant and till such time as a new president was elected, the vice-president should temporarily discharge the functions of the president. The order which is in kannada admits of exception. It is as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_316_KANTLJ1_1992Image1.jpg</IMG> after his enlargement on bail on finding his entry to the municipal council was barred by the order at Annexure-G , the petitioner promptly challenged the said order in this writ petition. Mr. Achar, learned counsel for the petitioner, tells me the writ petition was filed on the 29th april, 1991 and after he was enlarged on bail the petitioner had filed a supplemental statement to bring this to the notice of this court.