M G RAJU Vs. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Vice President and member respectively of the City Municipal Council, Mandya. They are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11-10-88 of the 3rd respondent, the Director of Municipal Administration in Karnataka. By the said order the 3rd respondent has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 309 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964. In the appeal the petitioners contended that the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 30-5-1988 at subject 23 the Municipal Council resolving to sell certain sites after following the procedure prescribed by Rule 39 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Guidance to Officers, Grant of Certified copies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 1966 in accordance with the directions given in earlier writ petitions by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution was illegal. The 3rd respondent has found that there cannot be any resolution in contravention of law as per the directions issued by the High Court.

(2.) In this Court what is urged is that there is no strict compliance with Rule 39, as the publication made is in a newspaper which is locally published and does not have sufficient circulation in the city. It is also contended for the petitioners that the Municipal Council is continued by virtue of executive order made in exercise of the power conferred on the Government by S.18 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. I do not think there is any force in either of the contentions. Rule 39 does not specify a particular paper in which the intended sale or lease should be advertised. Therefore as long as it is published in a paper which is printed, published and sold locally, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is substantial compliance with the requirement of the rule. As a limb of the argument it was contended by the learned counsel that there has been no publication by beat of tom-tom which is required. It is a question of fact to be investigated at a later stage. On mere allegation that there has been no such beat of tom-tom this Court cannot prevent the sale of sites which will affect directly or indirectly the intending purchasers more than the members of the council.

(3.) Merely because the petitioners belong to the group which does not enjoy the support of the majority of the council is no ground to attack the resolution. The view taken by the 3rd respondent is correct. The direction of this Court and compliance of Rule 39 would be sufficient guarantee that things are done in accordance with law. If there is breach of the provisions of law or breach of the directions given by this Court, the allotment or sale of sites may be questioned at appropriate stage.