IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.48494/2016 (LB ELE) BETWEEN MR. K. S. PRAKASH S/O LATE K.S.VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 490, PWD BLOCK PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHANTH A V, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKURU-572 101 2. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PAVAGADA-561 202 3. MR.PM.MAHESH MUNICIPAL COUNCELLOR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PAVAGADA WARD NO.18, KALIDASA NAGAR, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-561 202 (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L, AGA FOR R1, SMT. M.V.THANUJA, ADV. FOR R2, SRI G NARASI REDDY, ADV. FOR R3.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO-WARRANTO OR ANY OTHER WRIT AGAINST THE R-3 SINCE THE R-3 HAS DIRECTLY BY HIMSELF HAS DONE AND EXECUTED WORK/CONTRACTS FOR THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PAVAGADA AND IS DISQUALIFIED, IN TERMS OF S.16[1], [J] AND [K] OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1964 ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for respondents 2 & 3.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of quo- warranto against respondent No.3 contending inter alia that respondent No.3 was not entitled to be continued as a member of respondent No.2 – Town Municipal Council, in view of the fact that he had suffered disqualification as stipulated under the provisions of Section 16(1)(j) & (k) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’).
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 had executed certain works for Town Municipal Council and had also received payments in respect of works executed by him, and hence, respondent No.3 has suffered disqualification under Section 16(1)(j) & (k) of the Act.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 would submit that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the term of respondent No.3 has come to end by efflux of time stipulated under the Act and the term as an elected member ended on 14.03.2019. It is further contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Act which provides for an alternative remedy for adjudicating the disputes under Section 16(1) of the Act.
5. The contentions urged by the Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 merit consideration.
6. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that respondent No.3 has already completed his term as an elected member of respondent No.2 – Council, the relief sought in the writ petition cannot be granted, as writ of quo-warranto can be granted only in respect of a person who continues to occupy the office which he is otherwise also not eligible to do so in view of his having demitted office on completion of the tenure. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
7. In the light of the above order, the interim order granted earlier stands dissolved.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR