VIJAYAKUMARA GUPTA K S Vs. DIVL COMMR BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Town Municipal Council, Madbugiri, by its resolution dt.20-5-1969 proposed to lease out nine shops constructed by the Municipality to nine persons by allotment. The Divisional Commissioner by his order dt.28-12- 1973, at the instance Of some rate payers, in exercise of his powers Under Secs.303 and 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipal Act') cancelled the resolution aforesaid and directed the Municipality to lease out the shops in question in public auction. The affected persons to whom the leases of the shops in question had been granted by the Municipality earlier, challenged in this Court the aforesaid order of the Divl Commr in WP.82 of 1974. The learned single Judge by his order dt. 26-84975 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order and it is against this order that the present appeal arises at the instance of only two of the respondents to the writ petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the order of the learned single Judge only on the ground that the assumption made by the learned single Judge that the provisions of Sec.211 of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 are in part materia with the provisions of S.303 of the Municipal Act, and the reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Marichanniah v. Deputy Commr 1964 (1) MysLJ. 364., in which the scope of the provisions of S.211 had been considered by this Court, for holding that the Divl Commr had no power to cancel the resolution of the Municipal Council was not justified. And the order of the Divl Commr dt.28-12- 1973 has been sought to be sustained on two grounds, viz, (1) that the Divl Commr, under-S.303 of the Municipal Act being designated as the Chief Controlling Authority, could, in exercise of that power, cancel the resolution, and (ii) that under S.322 of the Municipal Act, as a revisional authority, the Divl Commr could interfere with the resolution of the Municipal Council in question.

(3.) Whether the provisions of S.211 of the Municipalities Act of 1951 and of S.303 of the Municipal Act are in pan materiel or not, the order of the Divl Commr is clearly without jurisdiction as would be presently shown. For ease of reference, the relevant provisions of Ss.303 and 322 of the Municipal Act deserve to be noticed.