DEVIKA SIDDALINGAGOWDA Vs. COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has declined to interfere with the notice issued by the Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur District convening a meeting of Municipal Council to consider the no confidence motion on 07.12.2012. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has stated the facts elaborately and therefore it is not necessary for us to restate the said facts.

(2.) From the material available on record it is clear that the first petitioner Smt. Devika Siddalingegowda, wife of Ramesh Gowda was elected as President of City Municipal Council, Tumkur District, Tumkur on 17.03.2012. Petitioners 2 and 3 are members of the said Municipal Council. 25 members out of 38 members of the Council made a request in writing on 08.11.2012 which is addressed to the first petitioner requesting her to convene a Special General Meeting of the Council for considering their request for moving a non confidence motion against her under Section 42(9) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). It is not in dispute between the parties that the said request in writing was not presented to the first petitioner personally. On the contrary as is clear from the statement of objections filed in the writ petition the said request dated 08.11.2012 was made to the first petitioner at 10.54 a.m. in the CMC Office at Tappal Brach which was duly acknowledged by the Officials. A copy of the said written request was also given to the Commissioner of the Municipal Council. The material on record shows that on receipt of the said written request the same was taken to the first petitioner's residence in person by one N. Nagaraj, a D' Group employee at about 6.15 p.m. on 09.11.2012 and the uncle of the President informed him that she is not at home and he does not know the time of her arrival. Again on 10.11.2012 an attempt was made to serve the said written request on her at 3.20 p.m. This time her sister informed the said Nagaraj that the President is not at home. Again on 13.11.2012 one another attempt was made to serve the said written request on the first petitioner at 3.15 p.m. This time a maid servant informed the said Nagaraj that the President has gone to Madhugiri. In the meanwhile a copy of the said written request was sent to the first petitioner to her office and two residential addresses through RPAD. In the notice sent to her office address the concerned postman made an endorsement that she was absent consecutively from 09.11.2012 to 19.11.2012. When the officials of the Council were unable to serve the said written request on the President, on 15.11.2012 they sent a copy of the said written request by RPAD to the first petitioner which also was returned on 23.11.2012 with an endorsement not available. However, in the meanwhile the office had put up the said written request to the President for consideration on 19.11.2012 along with others matter in a file. On 21.12.2012 as per Annexure H she refused to call for a meeting on the ground that the said request was not handed over to her personally and the signature of the members found therein are doubtful and the Council is busy with the ensuing election in demarcating the reserved constituency. In this back ground on 24.11.2012 the aforesaid 25 members made a request to the Vice- President under Section 47(3) of the Act who in turn directed the Commissioner to convene a meeting. It is that notice which is challenged in the writ petition.

(3.) The learned Single Judge after considering the case pleaded by both the parties and after looking into all the documents produced by them and after carefully considering the decisions relied upon by both the parties and interpreting the statutory provisions, has held there is no requirement in law to present the request personally to the President requesting her to convene a special general meeting to consider the request for moving no confidence motion. He has further held that in the instant case, the President has avoided to convene the meeting and therefore in law the request was made to the Vice President under Section 47(3) of the Act is valid and legal and no case for interference is made out, accordingly he has dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeals are filed.