Sri Anjanamurthy N Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Anjanamurthy N Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District) to conclude the proceedings on the petitioner's complaint dated 03.03.2025 under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 within one month from receipt of a copy of the order, taking up the proceedings on a day-to-day basis and deciding the case even without the participation of the petitioner or respondent Nos.3 to 9 if they fail to cooperate; notice to respondent Nos.3 to 9 dispensed with.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District) should be directed, by a writ of mandamus, to decide the petitioner's complaint dated 03.03.2025 filed under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 within a time-bound period. +1 more

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to conclude the disqualification proceedings as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner sought no relief against respondent Nos.3 to 9, notice to those respondents is dispensed with.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 is bound to take up cases of defection under the Act, 1987 on priority, since a candidate who has defected and incurred disqualification cannot be allowed to participate in the meetings of respondent No.2, and a finding of defection would create a casual vacancy that must be filled up immediately.ratio¶¶44
The mandate in the law requiring respondent No.1 to dispose of defection cases within 60 days has an avowed object, and respondent No.1 cannot ignore it.ratio¶¶44
Respondent No.1 shall take up the proceedings on a day-to-day basis; if the petitioner or respondent Nos.3 to 9 fail to cooperate, respondent No.1 shall proceed to decide the case without awaiting their participation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.), W.P. No. 22731 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 04.11.2025: A Janata Dal (Secular) councillor of Nelamangala City Municipal Council (Ward No.1) sought a writ of mandamus under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution commanding the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, to decide his complaint dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure-B), filed under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, seeking disqualification of seven JD(S) councillors (respondent Nos.3-9) under Section 3(1)(b) of that Act, the first hearing having been held on 27.03.2025 without any final order despite the statutory 60-day disposal mandate. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner is bound to take up defection cases on priority, since a disqualified councillor cannot participate in council meetings and a casual vacancy would have to be filled immediately, and that the mandate to dispose of such cases within 60 days has an avowed object and cannot be ignored. The petition was disposed of with a direction to conclude the proceedings within one month from receipt of a copy of the order, on a day-to-day basis, deciding the case even without the participation of non-cooperating parties; notice to respondent Nos.3-9 was dispensed with.

NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22731 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI ANJANAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 1 ELECTED FROM JANATA DAL (SECULAR) R/AT NO.1, SADASHIVANAGARA, KSRTC LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562123.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUSHANTH V.A, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, HEMALATHA A DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Location: HIGH COURTOF CHAPPARADAKALLU, KARNATAKA DODDABALLAPURA-DEVANAHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE RURAL - 562101.

THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL - 562123.

ANAND G COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.5, JANATA DAL (SECULAR),

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

HC-KAR

R/AT DEVANGA ROAD, NELAMANGALA.

SHARADA UMESH

COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.8, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT HIPPE ANJINEYA SWAMY LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA.

DAKSHYANI RAVIKUMAR COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.9, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT INDRAMMA LAYOUT, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA

B. PADMANAB,

COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.13, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT 1^ST CROSS, NO.6979, WEAVERS COLONY, NELAMANGALA

BHARATHI BAI W/O NARAYAN RAO, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.16, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT YELLAMMA NAGAR, WEAVERS COLONY, NELAMANGALA

NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.19, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT NO.930, RAYAN NAGAR, NELAMANGALA.

LATHA HEMANTH KUMAR W/O HEMANTH KUMAR N.P.,

NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

3 -

HC-KAR

COUNCILLOR, WARD NO.20, JANATA DAL (SECULAR), R/AT NO.5700, SRI. LAKSHMI LATHA, KEB OFFICE BEHIND ROAD, SUBASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DTD: 31.10.2025, NOTICE TO R3 TO R9 IS D/W)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR DIRECTION COMMANDING R-1 TO DECIDE THE COMPLAINT DTD. 03.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B FILED UNDER SECTION 4(2) OF THE KARNATAKA LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PROHIBITION OF DEFECTION) ACT, 1987 WITHIN A TIME BOUND PERIOD TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT, NOT EXCEEDING 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Since the petitioner has not sought for any reliefs against the respondent Nos.3 to 9, notice to the said respondents is dispensed.

The petitioner claims that he is a councillor of the respondent No.2 and that he had submitted an application to disqualify respondent Nos.3 to 9 as they had defected and incurred the disqualification as provided under Section

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

HC-KAR

3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987. The petitioner contends that though there is a mandate in the Act, 1987 to the respondent No.1 to dispose of the application within 60 days, the respondent No.1 is protracting the proceedings. He submits that the first hearing was fixed on 27.03.2025 and till date no final order is passed. The petitioner, therefore seeks for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to decide the complaint dated 03.03.2025 filed by him under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1987.

The learned AGA for the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent Nos.3 to 9 are protracting the proceedings before the respondent No.1 and therefore, the case could not be taken up. He further submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondent No.1 would take up the case and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

HC-KAR

As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 is bound to take up cases of defection as provided under the Act, 1987, on priority, since a candidate, who has defected and incurred the disqualification cannot be allowed to participate in the meetings of the respondent No.2. In case, it is found out that the respondent Nos.3 to 9 have defected and incurred the disqualification, there would be a casual vacancy which has to be filled up immediately. Therefore, the mandate in the law requiring the respondent No.1 to dispose of the cases within 60 days has an avowed object and the respondent No.1 cannot ignore that.

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.1 to conclude the proceedings as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The respondent No.1 shall take up the proceedings

on a day-to-day basis and dispose of the case as directed.

NC: 2025:KHC:44387 WP No. 22731 of 2025

6 -

HC-KAR

The petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 9 are directed

to co-operate with the respondent No.1 in early disposal of the case and if they fail to do so, the respondent No.1 shall proceed to decide the case without awaiting the

participation of the concerned person.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12