Municipal councillors disqualified for defecting from JD(S) challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order and its affirmation by the Single Judge. The Division Bench held their admissions of resignation precluded any further enquiry and dismissed the writ appeal.
None granted; writ appeal and pending I.As. 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 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.1, C M C ARASIKERE R/AT. BEHIND CORPORATION BANK B.H. ROAD, ARASIKERE-573 103
MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
W/O RAGHAVENDRA H.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.18, C M C ARASIKERE R/AT. A.K. COLONY SUBHASHNAGAR ARASIKERE-573 103
4 . B.N. VIDHYADHAR
S/O LATE B. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.25, C M C ARASIKERE
2
R/AT. BASAVANA DEVASTHANA RASTHE ARASIKERE-573 103
5 . AYISHA W/O SYED SIKANDAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.28, C M C ARASIKERE R/AT. SUNNICHOWK ARASIKERE-573 103
6 . DHARSHAN A.V. S/O VISHWANATH K. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.19, C M C ARASIKERE R/AT. GARUDANAGARI ROAD, RIGHT SIDE ARASIKERE-573 103
7 . PUTTASWAMY S/O NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.15, C M C ARASIKERE R/AT. BEHIND MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA B.G. HAITI, ARASIKERE-573 103
...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT Nos.1 TO 5 & 7; SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No.6)
AND:
2 . H.K. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE H.K. KALAIAH STATE PRESIDENT JANATHA DAL SECULAR PARTY
3
J.P. BHAVAN, 19/1, PLATFORM ROAD JAKKARAYANAKERE, SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020
3 . BILICHOWDAIAH S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH TALUK PRESIDENT JD(S) POLITICAL PARTY ARASIKERE TALUK BASAVARAJANPURA BENDEKERE POST BANAVARA HOBLI ARASIKERE-573 103
4 . M. SAMIULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED SAHEB MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR WARD NO.26, C M C ARSIKERE HULIYAR ROAD, ARASIKERE-573 103
5 . THE KARNATAKA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY IT'S ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.8 1ST FLOOR, KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU-560 052
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W. SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. A. MAHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. VIKRAM BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RULES PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2022 IN WP No.22352/2021 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT AND GRANT THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN WP No.22352/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.08.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
4
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ appeal is filed by appellants/petitioners against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2022 in W.P. No.22352/2021 (LB-RES).
5
appearing for appellants No. 1 to 5 and 7 and the learned counsel appearing for appellant No. 6 as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
6
appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
No.3 and 4 has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
7
• Byrappa v. Deputy Commissioner , reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 1578 .
and perused the decisions relied on by the parties before this Court. In the instant case, the complaint was made by respondent No.2, who was the President of the party concerned at the relevant time. The complaint specifically was that the resignation has been submitted by the appellants herein to the State President, District President and Taluka President of the party on 21.06.2021. The petitioners had also submitted a representation on 22.06.2021 before the Deputy Commissioner stating that they had resigned from the party and requesting that they be permitted separate seating in the Municipal Council. The Deputy Commissioner sent a communication to the Council on 23.06.2021 seeking confirmation of the signature of the petitioners. The Council acknowledged the signatures following which the Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the State President, District President and Taluka President of JDS seeking clarification whether the resignation submitted by the petitioners was accepted. The
8
Taluka President submitted a reply indicating that the letters were not received by him and requested initiation of action against the petitioners since they claim to have resigned. The resignation letters as well as the letter given to the Deputy Commissioner were part of the complaint submitted before the Deputy Commissioner.
"Accordingly, on 22.06.2021, the petitioners addressed a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Hassan requesting to allot separate seating in Council meeting by
9
stating that they have resigned from primary membership of JD(S) party among other reasons and stated that they do not come within the purview of the Anti defection law as applicable under the Act."
xxx
"Hence, it was clear that in view of the response of 2nd respondent there was no resignation by petitioners attracting 3(1)(a) of act warranting disqualification of the petitioners herein."
judgments to contend that an enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner is contemplated, we are of the opinion that the said proposition is applicable only in normal cases where the fact of submission of the resignation and the further fact of voluntary giving up of membership of the party is disputed by the concerned Councilors.
10
11
membership. Though an attempt has been made in these proceedings to contend that there was a denial of the resignation before the Deputy Commissioner, we are of the opinion that the admissions made by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner as well as before the learned Single Judge cannot be circumvented by the petitioners.
accordingly dismissed .
Pending I.A.No.1/2023 for substitution of R3 and I.A.No.3/2022 for direction, are hereby dismissed .
Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE
Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner was required to hold a further enquiry before disqualifying councillors who admitted resigning from their party's primary membership.
Whether the Single Judge rightly upheld the disqualification order under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Shivanna and Others v. Deputy Commissioner and OthersReferred
ILR 2004 KAR 4143 · Who else cites this
C.S. Kale Gowda v. Chief SecretaryReferred
ILR 1990 KAR 2781 · Who else cites this
Smt. Pavithra and Others v. The Deputy Commissioner and AnotherReferred
W.A.No.1125 of 221 (LBELE), Order dated 13.06.2022
Smt. Pavithra and Others v. The Deputy Commissioner and AnotherReferred
W.P.No.17093 of 2021 (LBELE), Order dated 25.09.2021
Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.Referred
(2005) 8 SCC 314 · Who else cites this
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India and OthersReferred
1994 Supp (2) SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others v. Swami Prasad Maurya and OthersReferred
(2007) 4 SCC 270 · Who else cites this
Smt. Ananda Lakshmi and Another v. Deputy Commissioner and OthersReferred
ILR 2002 KAR 5199 · Who else cites this
Byrappa v. Deputy CommissionerReferred
2011 SCC OnLine Kar 1578 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Harshvardhan Raj M.S.
Chandrashekaraih B.S.
N. Kavitha Devi
B.N. Vidhyadhar
Ayisha
Dharshan A.V.
Anu Sivaraman
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
