S M SADANANDAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is a member of the city municipal council, chitradurga, the first respondent under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') 'appointed' the petitioner as a member of the chitradurga urban development authority under its notification dated 22-2-1992, copy of which is marked as annexure-a. The copy of the gazette notification issued in this behalf is marked as annexure-b.

(2.) the city municipality, chitradurga at its meeting held on 24-3-1992 has passed a resolution on item No. 105(3) to nominate the second respondent, as could be seen from Annexure-D , as member of the chitradurga urban development authority in place of the petitioner. In view of the resolution of the city municipality, chitradurga, the first respondent under the impugned notification dated 2-6-1992, marked as Annexure-F , in modification of its previous notification dated 22-2-1992 and in exercise of its power under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 read with sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the act has notified the nomination of the second respondent in place of the petitioner.

(3.) Sri k. Channabasappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the government has appointed the petitioner in terms of clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the city municipality, chitradurga has no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned resolution to forward any other name for appointment as a member of the chitradurga urban development authority.