Dismissed

Lokesha Naik T v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/10726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Elected Gram Panchayat members challenged notifications declaring a Smaller Urban Area and constituting Holalkere Town Municipal Council, arguing the conversion cut short their terms contrary to Article 243-E and was arbitrary. The court found no violation or arbitrariness and rejected the writ; a companion petition for elections became infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None granted; WP 10726/2021 rejected and WP 24788/2024 dismissed as infructuous after State filed calendar of events for elections.

Lokesha Naik T Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10726 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24788 OF 2024 (LB-ELE)

¶8

IN WP No. 10726/2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LOKESHA NAIK T

¶11

S/O THMMANAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶12

R/AT KUDINEERAKATTE LAMBANIHATTI

¶13

SHIVAGANGA

¶14

HOLELKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN-57756.

¶15

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

L SHWETHA

¶18

W/O H SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.30 KDINEERAKATTI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶19

SINDHUR J S

¶20

W/O MANJUNATH N AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.60

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶23

KUDINEERAKATTI LAMBANIHATTY KUDINEERAKATTI VILLAGE SHIVAGANGA HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶24

SAVITHRAMMA

¶25

W/O PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.45 CHEERANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶26

DEVARAJA R S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.114 A K COLONY CHEERANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶27

VIJAYAMMA W/O SAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.202 CHEERANAHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶28

P HEERA NAIK S/O PUTTA NAIK

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶31

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.101 LAMBANIHATTI HOLALKERE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶32

BHAGYA JYOTHI E W/O KUMAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.12 LAMBANIHATTI HOLALKERE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶33

JAYALAKSHMI W/O PALIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.192 AREHALLY VILLAGE P O HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶34

PALEGOWDA G B S/O G S BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.104 AREHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶37

R SHIVANNA

¶38

S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.27 JAYANTHI NAGAR AREHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶39

12. SUSHILAMMA

¶40

W/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.70, JAIPURA HOLALKERE (RURAL) HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶41

K S SRUTHI

¶42

W/O BHARATH KUMAR D/O K S SURESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.172 AREHALLI VILLAGE HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶43

14. P J OBANNA

¶44

S/O JAYANNA P G AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 129, AREHALLI VILLAGE

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶46

¶47

HOLALKERE R S HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN CODE-577526.

¶48

…PETITIONERS

¶49

(BY SRI. SUNDAR RAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 560 001.

¶52

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER O/O DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 526.

¶53

THE TAHSILDAR HOLALKERE TALUK HOLALKERE-577526.

¶54

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT HOLALKERE-57756 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶55

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA., AAG A/W SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

¶58

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶60

R5 SERVED)

¶61

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 23.03.2021, VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R1, CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶62

IN WP NO. 24788/2024

¶63

BETWEEN:

¶64

VIJAYASIMHA KAHTROTH L S/O LOKYANAIK, AGED 45 YEARS, MEMBER HOLALKERE TOWN PANCHAYAT, R/O BANASHANKARI NILAYA, KAVALRAMAPPA BADAVANE, HOLALKERE TOWN 577 526.

¶65

...PETITIONER

¶66

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE)

¶67

AND:

¶68

THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

¶69

THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VV TOWER, BENGALURU -01.

¶70

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶73

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶74

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA 577 501.

¶75

THE CHIEF OFFICER HOLALKERE TMC, HOLALKERE 577 526.

¶76

THE TAHSHILDAR/ THE ELECTION OFFICER HOLALKERE TALUK, HOLALKERE - 577 526.

¶77

...RESPONDENTS

¶78

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA., AAG A/W

¶79

SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 AND R7; SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶80

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 30/08/2024 PRODUCED AT ANNX-E, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 AND E6. B) DIRECT THE R3 TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT FOR R6 HOLALKERE TOWN PANCHAYAT AT THE EARLIEST.

¶81

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶82

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶83

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶84

ORAL ORDER

¶85

The petitioners in W.P. No.10726/2021 are elected members of certain Gram Panchayats in Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The petitioners have called in question two notifications issued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 [for short, ‘the KMC Act’ ]. The first notification is dated 31.12.2020, and this notification is issued publishing the intention / proposal to declare the Holalkere Town Panchayat Area and certain parts of different Gram Panchayats within Holalkere Taluk as a Smaller Urban Area and notifying this panchayat as a Town Municipal Council. The second notification is dated 23.03.2021, and this notification is issued declaring the afore areas as a Smaller Urban Area and for constituting the Holalkere Town Municipal Council [for short, ‘the Town Municipal Council’ ].

¶86

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶87

The petitioner in W.P. No. 24788/2024 is an elected member of Holalkere Town Panchayat, and this petitioner has sought for directions to the different authorities, who are arrayed as respondents in this petition, to consider his representations. These representations are to hold elections to the Town Municipal Council. If the petitioners in W.P. No.10726/2021 are keen on the continuation of the respective Gram Panchayats until the closure of their elected term, the petitioner in W.P. No.24788/2024 is keen on ensuring that the elections are held at earliest for constitution of the Town Municipal Council.

¶88

However, this Court must record that the Writ petition in W.P. No.24788/2024 is rendered infructuous with the respondents filing the following two Memos, and the details of these Memos are as follows:

¶89

[a] Memo dated 05.11.2024 : This Memo is to place on record that elections to the

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶92

Offices of the President and Vice president will be held within 25 days from the date of order in these petitions and that the constitution of the Interim Municipal Council will within 3 months from the date of such order,

¶93

[b] Memo dated 21.11.2024 : This Memo is filed along with a Calendar of Events for the elections to the Offices of the President and Vice President, and in terms of this Calendar of Events, the process is begun from 29.11.2024 .

¶94

This Court, therefore, is only examining the merits of the grievance with the decision to declare the subject Smaller Urban Area and to constitute the Town Municipal Council as canvassed in W.P. No.10726/2021, and as such, the petitioners in this petition are referred to as the petitioners.

¶95

The petitioners’ grievance with the

¶96

impugned notifications is premised in the following

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶99

circumstances. The State Election Commission has published the Calendar of Events on 30.11.2020 for conduct of elections to different Gram Panchayats, including the Gram Panchayat to which the petitioners are elected. The elections to these Gram Panchayats are held either on 22.12.2020 or 27.12.2020, and the results are announced on 30.12.2020. The impugned notifications have reduced the petitioners’ term as the elected representatives of the corresponding Gram Panchayats. Sri. Sundar Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, canvasses that this Court must interfere with the impugned notifications because they violate Article 243-E of the Constitution of India and also because these Notifications are arbitrary.

¶100

On the first ground, Sri. Sundar Raj

¶101

submits that Article 243-E of the Constitution of India ensures a term of 5 [five] years for each panchayat with stipulation that no amendment to

¶102

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶103

any law shall have the effect of causing dissolution of such panchayat before the expiry of this term of 5 [five] years and therefore the respondents, who had conducted elections to the Gram Panchayats in the month December 2020 resulting in constitution of such Gram Panchayats, should have started proceedings for constitution of the Town Municipal Council in such a manner that the terms of the duly constituted Panchayats are not reduced. The learned counsel, in support of this contention, relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anjana

¶104

Murthy N and others v. Kalpana Manjunath and others¹ .

¶105

Sri. Sundar Raj canvasses that the Division Bench, while considering what would be the status of the elected representatives of the Panchayat when the Panchayat is merged with the newly formed City Municipal Council , has held that once elections

¶106

1 In Writ Appeal No. 46277/2021 and connected appeals which are disposed of on 21.04.2021

¶107

13 -

¶108

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶109

are held to a panchayat no decision to upgrade a panchayat can be taken until the end of the term of such panchayat and the process to convert or upgrade should be so taken that the process is completed within 6 months of the closure of the term.

¶110

The learned counsel relies upon the following in the afore decision:

¶111

Any conversion/up-gradation of a Panchayat to a TMC is to be done in such a manner that the entire process is completed within six months prior to the due date of the election. Once elections are held, no such conversion/up-gradation to be done, till the end of the term of the present Panchayat, though the process could be taken up at the time nearing the end of the term so as to complete it within the above said six months prior to the end of the term.

¶112

Sri. Sundar Raj, on the ground of

¶113

arbitrariness, submits that after the first impugned Notification dated 31.12.2020, the petitioners have filed detailed objections emphasising, amongst

¶114

14 -

¶115

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶116

others, that most of the residents of the concerned Gram Panchayats are agricultural labourers who depend on the benefits that are extended to them under different Rural Schemes and that the proposal to declare the Smaller Urban Area, including portions of the Panchayats, would result in denial of benefit to these residents, but the impugned Notification dated 23.03.2021 is issued without considering these objections.

¶117

Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned Additional Advocate General, refutes both the afore contentions. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the decision in Anjana Murthy N and others [ supra ] is delivered on 21.04.2021 and the impugned Notification is much prior to 23.03.2021, and therefore, this direction cannot inure to the petitioners’ advantage and that the Division Bench has also clarified that the tenure of five years as is contemplated under Article 243 of the Constitution of

¶118

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶119

India is not sacrosanct and would depend on circumstances like dissolution, merger, up-gradation and conversion.

¶120

Smt. Prathima Honnapura, who has made over the original file, submits that the concerned Gram Panchayats, even prior to the publication of the Calendar of Events on 30.11.2020, have filed resolutions to be part of the Town Municipal Council and that the proceedings, for a declaration of the subject areas as part of a Smaller Urban Area, are begun only after such resolution. The learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the petitioners, who have been elected in the elections held on 22.12.2020 and 27.12.2020, cannot gloss over the fact that the earlier Panchayats have resolved to be part of the Town Municipal Council.

¶121

Smt. Prathima Honnapura, on the consideration of the petitioners’ objections, submits that each of the objections filed after the first

¶122

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶123

notification dated 31.12.2020 [ including the objections filed by the petitioners ] have been considered with the concerned putting up the file with the objections and response thereto. The learned Additional Advocate General, in this regard invites this Court’s attention to the schedule appended to the communication dated 01.03.2021 addressed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Municipal Administration.

¶124

This Court must observe that the Division

¶125

Bench in Anjana Murthy and others [ supra ], upon reference to the different decisions including the decisions where there is a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashatra vs. Jalagaon Municipal Council² , in paragraph 17.5 of the decision has concluded thus.

¶126

17.5. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the tenure of five years is not sacrosanct as sought to be contended by the

¶127

2 [2003] 9 SCC 731

¶128

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶129

appellants herein. Depending on the facts and circumstances like dissolution, merger, upgradation, conversion, etc., the said five years period would be reduced. We are, however, of the opinion that where there is no such conversion, absorption or dissolution, the term/period of the councilors would continue to be protected.

¶130

In the light of this exposition, it is held that once elections are held to a panchayat, no decision to upgrade a panchayat can be taken until the end of the term of such panchayat and the process to convert or upgrade should be so taken that the process is completed within 6 months of the closure of the term.

¶131

This Court is of the considered view that

¶132

this exposition as aforesaid undermines the first ground urged on behalf of the petitioners, and this Court is also of the considered view that the petitioners cannot draw any support from the Division Bench’s direction to start the proceedings for

¶133

18 -

¶134

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶135

upgrading a panchayat closer to the end of the term of such panchayat because, as pointed out by Smt.Prathima Honnapura, the impugned notifications are prior to the Division Bench’s direction.

¶136

This Court has examined the original records made over to examine whether there could be interference with the impugned notifications on the ground of arbitrariness in the decision making. It is seen from the original records that each of the concerned panchayats has passed resolution consenting to be part of the Town Municipal Council. These resolutions are in the month of August 2020, and the first impugned notification dated 31.12.2020 is issued in the light of these resolutions. The petitioners and others have filed objections raising multiple grounds, including the ground that 80% of the residents of Panchayat are below poverty line and if these Panchayats are included in the Town

¶137

19 -

¶138

NC: 2024:KHC:45745 WP No. 10726 of 2021 C/W WP No. 24788 of 2024

¶139

Municipal Council, they would lose the benefit of the different schemes.

¶140

emphasizing that different schemes are in vogue for promoting skills amongst the youngsters in the Urban Areas, to ensure hostel accommodation and other facilities to students, and that there will be allotment to sites with improvement of facilities. This Court is of the considered view that the consideration as aforesaid, based on the report filed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, does not render the impugned notifications susceptible on the ground of arbitrariness. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶141

ORDER

¶142