Writ appeals filed to set aside a Single Judge order refusing interim stay. The Division Bench found the Single Judge justified in declining discretionary interim relief, as the meeting proceeded per pending division bench order, and dismissed the appeals.
Appeals dismissed; no interference with Single Judge order; interlocutory application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOs.744-745 OF 2019(LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
... APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI.G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W SRI. AZEEMUDDIN M MOTEKHAN, ADV.)
AND
MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALLAPURA VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTIRCT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R1-R3, SHRI. K.S. ARUN, ADV. FOR R4 TO R13)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/2/2019, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOs.69676968/2019 AND ALLOW THE APPEALS BY GRANTING INTERIM STAY AS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS
AND ALL THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THIS SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.
of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993, they are independent. Even assuming that the earlier motion taken out under sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 has failed, there is no embargo on taking out a motion under Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993.
This decision has no relevance as far as the motion under Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 is concerned, in the context of the failure of the motion of no confidence under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993.
discretionary interim relief staying the proceedings of the meeting convened on the basis of ‘No Confidence Motion’ taken out under sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993. In any case, the outcome of the meeting will be subject to further orders, which may be passed in the writ petitions, which are pending before the learned Single Judge.
8. By keeping all the contentions open in the
pending writ petitions, the appeals are dismissed.
appeals, it will be open for the authorities to declare the results, by opening the sealed cover which will be subject to outcome of the writ petitions.
The pending interlocutory application is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
DM
SMT RUDRAMMA AND ANR
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA AND OTHERS
ABHAY S OKA
H T NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
