COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE Vs. CHITRAKALA SHASHINDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dtd. 28/7/2021 passed in Writ petition No.14459 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2. Though notice was taken out on the first respondent, there is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is aggrieved only by the observation found at paragraph 8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and that the appeal is not directed against the operative portion of the order, since the same has already been complied with. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge that Sec. 66 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 permits only delegation of his ordinary powers, duties and functions and cannot include the delegation of quasi- judicial powers, is incorrect and that the said observation is contrary to the finding in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND HEALTH OFFICER v. MAHTANI VENTURES reported in . It is submitted that after considering the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the specific wording therein, as also, the binding decisions of the Apex Court and several decisions of co-equal Benches of this Court, as well as other High Courts, the Division Bench had specifically considered the question whether the Commissioner is authorised to delegate his quasi-judicial powers under Sec. 66 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and held as follows: