IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.24037/2018 (LB RES) BETWEEN SRI. MANJUNATHA A. B.
S/O. ASHWATHNARAYANACHARI. M, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2440, M.G. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHIT B.M, ADV. FOR SRI SRINIVAS RAO S S, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISVESVARAYA TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU-25.
4. COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPALITY, CHICKABALLAPUR-562101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADV. FOR R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT-3 AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel Sri S.P.Shankar along with the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleading applicant in IA-1/2018.
2. The petition is directed against the notice dated 20.03.2018, whereby the petitioner is sought to be proceeded under the provisions of Section 41 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1964, and has been called upon to show cause why the power vested in the Government should not be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the term of office of the petitioner as a member of respondent No.4-Municipality has come to an end on 18.03.2019 and in that view of the matter, question of removal or exercise of power under Section 41 of the Act does not arise. Learned Senior Counsel would fairly concur with the same.
4. It is seen that the provision provides for removal of a Councilor and is in the nature of disqualification proceedings. Certain allegations have been made and in fact, petitioner has been proceeded under the Penal Code also. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the notice lapses in view of the expiry of the term of office of the petitioner and the petition has been rendered infructuous.
5. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.
6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, the impleading application – IA-1/2018 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR