THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.4300 OF 2017 (LB-ELE) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.4694 OF 2017 Between:
President (Acting) District Congress Committee Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571 201 Rep. by Sri.T.P.Ramesh ... Appellant (By Sri.Shivaramu H.C., Advocate) And:
1. Deputy Commissioner Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571 201 2. Ms.Srimathi Bangera D/o Venkappa Aged about 50 years R/at Gowli Street Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571 201 3. Mrs.Veenakshi W/o Mr.Ravi Aged about 25 years R/at Siddappa Road Madikeri, Kodagu District – 571 201 ... Respondents (Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri.Manmmohan P.N., Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3) ---
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 27.4.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Nos.11335-11336/2017 (LB-ELE) and consequently, confirm the order passed by the first respondent in No.CHUNA/25/2016-17 dated 1.3.2017 under the facts and circumstances of the case and grant such other relief.
These appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Manmohan P.N., learned advocate, accepts notice for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Formal service of notice to the respondents is, therefore, dispensed with.
2. By consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are taken up for preliminary hearing.
3. These are appeals by the respondent No.1 in the writ petitions, against the judgment and order dated April 27, 2017, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
4. On March 16, 2014 , the election of the City Municipal Council, Madikeri, was held. The writ petitioners were elected as councillors. When a date was fixed for election of the office bearers, that is, for the post of President and Vice-President, a whip was issued by the District Congress Committee for casting votes in favour of the official candidates of the party. It is contended that the writ petitioners did not vote in favour of the official candidates.
5. The Executive Committee of the Pradesh Congress, by the resolution passed on January 10, 2004, empowered the President of Pradesh Congress to issue whip. The President was, however, authorized to delegate his power to the General Secretary of the Pradesh Congress or the President of the District Congress Committee or the President of the Block Congress Committee to issue whip.
6. In the case in hand, the President authorised the Secretary to issue whip to the President of the District Committee.
7. The President could have delegated the power to issue whip to the President of the District Congress Committee, but he delegated his power to the Secretary with power to delegate to issue whip to the District Congress Committee.
8. The Hon’ble Single Judge rightly held that the President was not authorized to empower the General Secretary to further sub-delegate his power to the President, District Congress Committee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.
9. In view of dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration, and is, also, dismissed.
10. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB