BENKOSA BASKARASA KABADI Vs. CHAMPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum, dated 22-11-1982 has assailed the legality of the same inter alia on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.

(2.) The brief facts which may be stated for a just disposal of this writ petition are as follows : The 1st respondent-Champabai filed a revision petition purporting to be one under Sec. 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 27-7-1982 made by the Administrator, City Municipal Council, Gadag -Betgeri. Apparently, on the relevant date, the Municipal Council itself had been dissolved for whatever reason and the entire Municipality was in charge of an Administrator appointed under Sec. 315 of the Act. Under Sec. 322 of the Act, the Divisional Commissioner is vested with the revisional powers along with the government. Such revisional powers may be exercised to correct the orders of the subordinate officers. The 2nd respondent-Divisional Commissioner was fully aware of that. He, nevertheless, proceeded to entertain the revision inter alia on the ground that he had overall controlling authority in terms of Sec. 302 of the Act. Therefore, adjourned the case for further hearing to a date. Aggrieved by that assumption of jurisdiction, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief inter alia on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction is illegal. Therefore, he has asked for a writ of certiorari quashing the order impugned.

(3.) At the out-set I must point out that the proper relief he should have asked for : for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the revision petition of the 1st respondent as the 2nd respondent lacked on his own reasoning, jurisdiction to correct the action of the Administrator who was acting as the Town Municipal Council and not as a subordinate officer. To hold that he has overall controlling powers in terms of Sec. 302 of the Act is most unfortunate. This Court as far back as 3rd September, 1976 in the of case of Vijaya Kumar Gupta v Divisional Commissioner. Bangalore [1977(1) Kar.L.J., 145] ruled in a Division Bench ruling that when specific power is conferred on a particular authority to decide the fate of the resolution of the Town Municipal Council which appears to that authority to be illegal under Sec. 306 of the Act, that power cannot be usurped by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of his power under Sec. 302 of the Act. Therefore, even on the date when the impugned order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, the law had been declared by this Court. That is, what should be done by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 306 of the Act cannot be done by the Divisional Commissioner indirectly.