Disposed

Siddappa S/O Yamanappa Madar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2019WP/113837/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Dharwad Bench, issued interim directions in writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the order violated the proviso to Section 16(3) due to lack of opportunity of hearing and directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry first.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders are set aside in principle. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to hold an enquiry and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in compliance with the proviso to Section

Siddappa S/O Yamanappa Madar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOS.113837-838 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SIDDAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA MADAR @ GUDADINNI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.16, BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶9

VITTAL S/O BHEEMAPPA BAGEWADI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.3, KILLA GALLI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.ANAND R KOLLI & SRI.V.M.SHELVANT, ADVS.)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶15

SRI. BASAPPA S/O HUSANEPPA MADAR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF TMC, R/O: WARD NO.16, BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶16

¶17

SRI.VIKRAM S/O SIDDANAGOUDA NADAGOUDAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.13, KILLA GALLI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) (SRI.SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4)

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMUPGNED ORDER DATED 06.09.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNXURE-J AND J1 RESPECTIVELY.

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶24

Learned Shivakumar S. Badawadagi accepts notice for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶25

The petitioners have challenged the order at Annexure-J and J(1) dated 06.09.2019 contending that the order has been passed apparently on the basis of

¶26

¶27

report by the Assistant Commissioner but without notice to them. It is submitted that the complaint was lodged as against the petitioners and the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner came to be challenged in WP No.111727-728/2019, wherein this Court while taking note of the submission that Assistant Commissioner had issued notice to gather necessary information and submit report to Deputy Commissioner, disposed off the writ petition in light of the observation made.

¶28

The Court had directed the Deputy

¶29

Commissioner to take a decision after holding an enquiry as envisaged under provisions of Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964. The order at Annexure-J has been passed by placing reliance on report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner is not dispute. Deputy Commissioner has power to act under Section 16(2) of Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, on the basis of the

¶30

¶31

report of the Assistant Commissioner. However, it is to be noted that as per the proviso to Section 16(3), the statutory mandate requires giving reasonable opportunity to a person who would be affected by the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶32

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not been issued with a notice nor afforded a reasonable opportunity before the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-J. In light of the admitted facts, the orders at Annexure-J and J1 are liable to be set aside making it clear that the power has to be exercised strictly in terms of the statutory mandate under Section 16(2) of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. It is also made clear that the Deputy Commissioner can rely upon the report made to him by the Assistant Commissioner. However, as per the proviso to Section 16(2), the Deputy Commissioner is required either suo motu or on a report

¶33

¶34

made on him to hold an enquiry “as he deems fit” before passing an order.

¶35

5. Accordingly, in light of the requirement under Law, the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order after affording an opportunity for the petitioners and proceed thereafter after holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Accordingly petition is

¶36

disposed off.

¶37

The Deputy Commissioner is required to

¶38

pass an order as per Section 16(2) with respect to the proceedings pending before him within a period not later than two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Hmb

Siddappa S/O Yamanappa Madar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa S/O Yamanappa Madar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Laxmawwa W/O Basavaraj Kuri Vs Smt. Kalawwa W/O Yallappa Kuri

Dhanaraj, S/O. Madanraj Kudumi, Vs Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

Ramsingh, S/O. Baddu Rathod, Vs Lachhmansingh, S/O. Rur Singh

Shri.Mahesh S/O Rama Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Ningappa S/O Shivaling Waghmore Vs Sri.Maruti S/O Shivappa Waghmore

Mr.Balaji Naik a S/O Gopal Nayak Vs Gulbaga Electricity Supply Company Limited