Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri K M Mune Gowda, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash an order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Election Officer, City Municipal Council, Chintamani (respondent No.2). The petitioner was the President of Janatha Dal (S) for Chikkaballapura District. The respondent No.3, Sri Mohammed Shafeeq, was elected as a councillor to the Chintamani City Municipal Council but was disqualified under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 by the Deputy Commissioner and Election Officer, Chikkaballapur, vide order dated 22.04.2022. The challenge to that disqualification order in W.P.No.10298/2022 was dismissed by the High Court. The present petition challenged a subsequent order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Election Officer. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and sought its quashing. The respondents, represented by the State and the Election Officer, and the private respondent No.3, opposed the petition. The Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 22 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The Court held that while the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy of election petition is available - The petitioner challenged the disqualification order passed under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 by the Election Officer. The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 22 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (election petition) is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, but the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-4) B) Local Self-Government - Disqualification - Anti-Defection - Section 3(b) of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 - Disqualification of councillor for defection - The respondent No.3 was disqualified under Section 3(b) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner and Election Officer vide order dated 22.04.2022. The challenge to that order in W.P.No.10298/2022 was dismissed by this Court. The present petition sought to quash a subsequent order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Election Officer. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an election petition under Section 22 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the disqualification order passed under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 is maintainable when an alternative remedy of election petition is available under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964?
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available under law.
Law Points
- Disqualification under Section 3(b) of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act
- 1987
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Alternative remedy not an absolute bar
- Existence of alternative remedy of election petition
