RAMACHANDRA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, have been referred to a Division Bench.

(2.) The petitioners in these petitions are officials of the Mangalore, City Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipality'). By the order Oi the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, dated 21.6.1978 (Ex 'A') they were transferred from that Municipality. Ramachandra Shetty, the petitioner in W.P. No. 7349 of 1978, was transferred to Belthangadi Municipality. B. Gopal, the petitioner in, W.P. No. 1350 of 1978, was transferred to Udipi Town Municipality. In these petitions, they have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 320 of the Karnataka, Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). They have also impugned the aforesaid order transfering them from Mangalore Municipality.

(3.) We shall first proceed to deal with the challenge to the legislative competence to enact S. 320 of the Act. Shri K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that that Section is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. That Section reads: "Powers to Transfer Officers; - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government shall have power for transfer any office or servant of a municipal council to the service of any other municipal Council or of any other local authority off of any Government Department. (2) The Government shall have power to issue such general of special directions as it thinks necessary for the purpose of giving due effect to transfers made under sub-section (1) and such directions shall be complied with by thei municipal council and any municipal authority concerned." , The source of the power of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Section is Entry 5 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution That Entry reads : "Local Government, that is to say, the constitution and powers of municipal corporations, improvement trusts, district boards, mining settlement authorities and other local authorities for the purpose of local self-Government or village administration." Shri Shivasnankar Bhat contended that by virtue of this Entry the State Legislature is competent to legislate) on the topic of constitution and powers of municipal bodies and that transfer of employees of one municipal body to another municipal body, does not come within the ambit of either constitution or power of municipal bodies. Shri Shivashankar Bhat - sought to derive support for his above contention from certain observations in Shivarudrappa v. Kapurchand, AIR 1965 Mys. 76. There a, Division Bench of this Court observed: