H ANNAPPA KAMATH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Councillor of the Town Municipal Council, Thirthalially. The Municipal Council passed a resolution on the 19th of January, 1975, at a special general body meeting, copy of which is produced in the case as Exhibit-A, under Section 41 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending to the State Government that disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner and that he should be removed from the office of the councillor of the Town Municipal Counci1, Thirthahally. The petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga District under Section 306(1) of the Act and prayed for suspending the execution of the resolution or prohibiting giving effect to the said resolution. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 5th of April, 1975, produced in the case as Exhibit-B, rejected the petition holding that there was no sufficient ground to exercise the powers vested in him under Section 306(1) of the Act. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 19th of January, 1975 - Exhibit-A and the order of the Deputy Commissioner - Exhibit-C.

(2.) Section 41(1) of the Act, under which the impugned resolution hag been passed reads as follows:

(3.) So far as the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 5th of April 1975 Exhibit-C is concerned, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner could not have acted under Section 306(1) of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. As Section 41(1) of the Act is a complete code in the matter pertaining to the removal of a personal from the office of the councillor, the question of invoking the power under Section 306(1) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner does not arise. If the Deputy Commissioner exercises his power under Section 306(1) of the Act and suspends the operation of the resolution of the Town Municipal Council passed under Section 41(1) of the Act, it will have the result of rendering the power of the State Government under Section 41(1) of the Act nugatory. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no competence to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 306(1) of the Act.