RAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions the persons who are former Councillor's of Ranebennur City Municipality, some of whom might continue to be so, have challenged the order dated 18-7-2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, Haveri, as per Annexure-A under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') determining and fastening the liability of Rs. 61,242/- on each of the petitioner as the sum payable by the petitioners for their negligent act while acting as Councillors and for having caused loss of a sum of Rs. 12,24,843/- to the Municipality.

(2.) These writ petitions are filed challenging this order an a direction for recovery of the amount, inter alia contending that the order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act; that no proper opportunity had been given; that the Deputy Commissioner has not taken into consideration the explanation that has been offered by the petitioners; that the petitioners had not acted either negligently or had misconducted to render themselves liable for compensating the Municipality in terms of the provisions of Section 308 of the Act and such other grounds. Rule has been issued, notices have been issued to the respondents. The first respondent-State of Karnataka, 2nd respondent-the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, and 4th respondent-the Tahsildar, Ranebennur, are represented by Sri Narayan, High Court Government Pleader, Sri Mahesh appears for the 3rd respondent-City Municipal Council, Ranebennur. Statement of Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) I have heard Sri Kiran Kumar, Advocate for Sri S.S. Patil and Sri Subash B. Adi, learned Counsels for the petitioners, Sri Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for respondent 3.