Disposed

Sri S R Garwad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2021WP/3064/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest writ petition seeking directions to constitute and maintain a corporation security force and empower officers with police powers under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The High Court held that Sections 491 and 492 are enabling provisions involving State policy discretion.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction issued to constitute security force or empower officers.

Sri S R Garwad Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.3064/2020 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI S.R. GARWAD S/O. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.178, 4^TH MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UMAPATHI S., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE))

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 9^TH FLOOR AND 10^TH FLOOR, V.V. TOWER, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 006. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

(BY SMT. VANI H., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE))

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EMPOWER CORPORATION SERVANTS TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF POLICE OFFICER AS PER SECTION 491 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSTITUTE AND MAINTAIN CORPORATION SECURITY FORCE AS PER SECTION 492 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition is stated to be in public interest. The petitioner is a senior citizen, resident of Chamarajpet, Bengaluru - 560 018.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Government servant having rendered thirty five years of service in the Urban Development Department and Secretariat Administration. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to exercise the power of police officer for the purpose of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience) as per

¶22

-: 3 :-

¶23

Section 491 of the said Act. The second prayer sought by the petitioner is to issue a direction to the respondents to constitute and maintain corporation security force as per Section 492 of the Act.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ("BBMP").

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Sections 491 and 492 of the Act have not been given effect to by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and therefore, a direction may be issued to them to give effect to the said provisions in respect of the all City Municipal Corporations in the State are concerned. He submitted that this writ petition has been filed in public interest for the enforcement of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and therefore, a direction may be issued in that regard.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that Section 491 of the Act reserve discretion in the State

¶27

-: 4 :-

¶28

Government to empower any officer or servant of the Corporation to exercise powers of a Police Officer for the purposes of the Act. The said discretion would be exercised by the State Government as and when the necessity arises. Hence, this Court may not direct by an order that there should be corporation officer or servant to exercise the powers of a police officer to be kept in reserve as such. She contended that if the need arises, such a direction would be given to a particular corporation by the State Government.

¶29

As far as the constitution and maintenance of corporation security force is concerned, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that it is again a matter to be considered by each of the corporations to constitute

¶30

a corporation security force. That the respective corporations would take a decision to constitute such a force as and when the necessity arises and this Court may not issue a direction to all the corporations to constitute such a force. She also contended that only Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike had been made a party in this writ petition and the other corporations are not made parties and therefore, no direction could be issued to the

¶31

-: 5 :-

¶32

other corporations as such. Learned Additional

¶33

Government Advocate further submitted that the writ petition may accordingly be disposed.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/BBMP submitted that the Act would no longer apply to BBMP as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 has been enacted and under that Act, Section 339 is relevant and therefore, no direction could be given as far as respondent No.3/BBMP is concerned. Learned counsel for the BBMP further submitted that Section 325 of the BBMP Act deals with Constitution of a corporation security force and therefore, no direction could be issued under the provisions of the Act to respondent No.3/BBMP.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the

¶36

respective parties, at the outset, we extract Sections 491 and 492 of the Act for immediate reference:

¶37

"491. Exercise of powers of police officer

¶38

by corporation servants.- Government may empower any corporation officer or servant or any class of corporation officers or servants to exercise the powers of a police officer for the purposes of this Act.

¶39

-: 6 :-

¶40

492. Corporation security force.- (1) There shall be constituted and maintained a force to be called the corporation security force,-

¶41

(i) for the better protection and security of the property owned by the corporation;

¶42

(ii) for aiding the officers of the corporation in the detection and investigation of any matter relating to leakage of revenue or any tax payable to the corporation;

¶43

(iii) for effective communication and obtaining of any information regarding any design to commit or the commission of any offence by any person under this Act, any rule, byelaw or regulation or order made under it.

¶44

(2) The corporation security force shall consist of such number of

¶45

supervisory officers and members as may be determined by the corporation and shall be appointed by the Commissioner in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed.

¶46

(3) The Commissioner shall exercise powers of superintendence and control over the corporation security force and matters relating to recruitment and conditions of

¶47

-: 7 :-

¶48

service, the conduct and discipline of the members of the security force shall be governed by such rules as may be prescribed."

¶49

On a reading of the same, it is clear that Section 491 is an enabling provision and it is not a mandatory requirement, but only a directory one reserving description in the State Government to empower any corporation officer or any servant or any class of corporation officers or servants to exercise the powers of a police officer for the purposes of this Act. It is for the State to take a decision as and when required to empower any corporation officer or servant to exercise powers of a police officer for the purposes of the Act as and when the necessity arises. Therefore, we do not think that we can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in directing the State to empower any corporation officer or servant or any class of corporation officers or servant to exercise the powers of police officer for the purposes of the Act.

¶50

Section 492 is with regard to constitution and maintenance of corporation security force. The same is for

¶51

-: 8 :-

¶52

better protection and security of the property owned by the corporation and for detection and investigation of any matter relating to leakage of revenue or any tax payable to the corporation and for effective communication and obtaining of any information regarding any design to commit or the commission of any offence by any person under this Act, any rule, bye-law or regulation or order made under it. The object of the said provision is to aid the corporation for better administration of the corporation area. Although it is stated that the corporation security force shall be constituted and no such security force as such has been constituted, we think that the said provision is an enabling provision and it is a matter of policy decision for the State Government for directing the respective corporations to constitute a security force. That apart, it is also left to the individual corporations to take a decision as to whether the constitution and maintenance of a corporation security force is necessary or not. We do not think that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court could encroach upon the powers of the respective corporation or the State

¶53

-: 9 :-

¶54

Government so as to direct constitution of a corporation security force.

¶55

In the circumstances, we observe that it is for

¶56

the State Government or for the respective corporations to take a decision with regard to Section 492 of the Act is concerned. The writ petition is accordingly disposed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Sri S R Garwad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S R Garwad v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr Manohar Vs Mrs Yogeshwari

Sri Ramanjineya G M Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Smt. Kunjamma Vs Nil

Sri T Manjunatha Vs Sri Krishnappa

M B Manjunatharadhya Vs Smt. Nayana

Smt Megashree G N Vs Harshath S