T S SUBRAMANYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel, is taken up for final disposal. After hearing the Counsel, it is disposed of by the following order.

(2.) The petitioner was the beneficiary of a Resolution passed by the town Municipal Council, Sringeri, Chikmagalur District, at its meeting held on 27-2-1982. By that resolution, the municipal Council decided to grant a site measuring 85' x 100' on long lease of 50 years to the petitioner and decided to forward the copy of the resolution to the Deputy Commissioner and the Government for obtaining prior approval. That resolution was questioned by respondent-4 K. T. Sanjeeve Gowda before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 306 (1) of the Karnataka Municipalities act as one without jurisdiction and otherwise opposed to law, as the prior approval of the Government had not been obtained as mandated under Section 72 of the Karnataka Municipalities act. Parties were notified and their counsel were heard. The Deputy Commissioner after examining the rival contentions advanced, formulated two questions for his decision. Those questions were : (1) Whether, within the jurisdiction of the Town Municipal Council, Sringeri, there was scope for establishment of two cinema theatres having regard to the population of Sringeri (2) Whether the Town Municipal council, Sringeri had the power to grant lease for 50 years both the questions were answered in the negative and consequently he directed cancellation of the lease. To be precise what the Deputy Commissioner decided is in Kannada and it reads as follows: (Bold word is mine)

(3.) The contention advanced by the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner had no power under sub-section (1) of Section 306 to pass a final order in regard to any resolution of a Town municipal Council. Under that sub-section, the power is limited to suspending the resolution and forwarding the same for decision of the Government or the divisional Commissioner. The Government or its delegate, the Divisional commissioner alone can take the decision in regard to that resolution. That had not been done. Therefore, the impugned order is bad and is liable to be set aside.