Karnataka High Court Quashes Disqualification of Councillors Under Anti-Defection Law for Violation of Natural Justice. Deputy Commissioner's Order Set Aside as Petitioners Were Not Given Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Ms. Srimathi Bangera and Mrs. Veenakshi, were elected as Councillors of the City Municipal Council (CMC), Madikeri, in elections held on 16.03.2014. Subsequently, on 14.08.2015, petitioner No.1 was elected as President of CMC, Madikeri. Elections for the posts of President and Vice-President were scheduled for 09.09.2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri (respondent No.2), disqualifying them from the post of Councillor under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, the petitioners approached the High Court. The court noted that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The court directed that the matter be disposed of within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Disqualification Order - The Deputy Commissioner passed an order disqualifying the petitioners from the post of Councillor under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The court held that such an order violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. (Paras 1-5)

B) Local Self-Government - Anti-Defection - Disqualification - Opportunity of Hearing - The court quashed the disqualification order and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order of disqualification passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 is sustainable when it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Points

  • Natural justice
  • Right to be heard
  • Disqualification under anti-defection law
  • Opportunity of hearing
  • Quashing of order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (04) 25

W.P.Nos.11335-11336/2017 (LB-ELE)

2017-04-27

Raghvendra S. Chauhan

Mr. Manmohan P.N. for petitioners; Mr. B. Lethif for C/R1; Mr. A. S. Ponnanna, Addl. Advocate General a/w Mr. S. Chandrashekaraiah, HCGP for R.2

Ms. Srimathi Bangera and Mrs. Veenakshi

President (Acting), District Congress Committee, Madikeri and Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging disqualification order under anti-defection law

Remedy Sought

Quashing of order dated 01.03.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner disqualifying petitioners as Councillors

Filing Reason

Order passed without affording opportunity of hearing

Previous Decisions

Deputy Commissioner passed disqualification order on 01.03.2017

Issues

Whether the disqualification order under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 is valid when passed without hearing the petitioners?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

An order of disqualification under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 cannot be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected person, as it violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Madikeri, Kodagu District, the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 has disqualified the petitioners from the post of Councillor of the City Municipal Council, Madikeri, under Section 3 (1) (b) and 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, the petitioners have approached this Court. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice.

Procedural History

The Deputy Commissioner passed the disqualification order on 01.03.2017. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka on an unspecified date. The High Court heard the matter on 27.04.2017 and allowed the petitions, quashing the order and remanding the matter.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987: Section 3(1)(b), Section 4
  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Quashes Disqualification of Councillors Under Anti-Defection Law for Violation of Natural Justice. Deputy Commissioner's Order Set Aside as Petitioners Were Not Given Opportunity of Hearing Under Section 3(1)(b) and 4 of Karnatak...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Reopening Case. ITAT's Decision Invalidating Reopening Under Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Upheld Due to Lack of Reasonable Belief.