Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shahjaha (President of City Municipal Council, Basavakalyan) and Abdul Gaffar (a member), challenged a no confidence motion passed on 28.1.2015 removing the first petitioner from the post of President. The motion was passed by the members of the City Municipal Council, including respondents 4 to 7 who are a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and a Member of Legislative Assembly. The petitioners argued that these members were not entitled to vote in the no confidence motion. The court examined Section 42(2A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, which provides that MPs and MLAs are entitled to vote in the election of the President. However, the court held that this right is limited to the election and does not extend to a no confidence motion under Section 42(3) read with Section 42(4). The court reasoned that the legislature intended a distinction between the two processes. Consequently, the votes of respondents 4 and 5 were invalid, but the motion was still passed by the required majority of the members entitled to vote. The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the no confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - No Confidence Motion - Voting Rights - Section 42(2A) of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly are not entitled to vote in a no confidence motion against the President of a City Municipal Council - The court held that the right to vote in the election of the President under Section 42(2A) does not extend to voting in a no confidence motion under Section 42(3) read with Section 42(4) - The no confidence motion passed by the members entitled to vote was valid (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the members of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and the Legislative Assembly of the State are entitled to vote in a no confidence motion moved against the President of a City Municipal Council under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the no confidence motion passed on 28.1.2015 removing petitioner No.1 from the post of President of City Municipal Council, Basavakalyan, was valid. The court clarified that members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly are not entitled to vote in a no confidence motion under Section 42(3) read with Section 42(4) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, but their votes were not essential as the motion was passed by the required majority of the members entitled to vote.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 42(2A) of Karnataka Municipalities Act
- 1964
- Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly not entitled to vote in no confidence motion against President of City Municipal Council
- Distinction between right to vote in election of President and right to vote in no confidence motion
- No confidence motion validly passed by members entitled to vote.
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (08) 42
Writ Petition Nos.201399 & 201754/2015
R.J. Bhusare, G.R. Gurumath, A Syed Habeeb, Sachin Mahajan, Gourish S. Khashampur
Shahjaha and Abdul Gaffar
State of Karnataka and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a no confidence motion passed by the City Municipal Council, Basavakalyan, removing the first petitioner from the post of President.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution of no confidence motion passed on 28.1.2015 removing petitioner No.1 from the post of President of City Municipal Council, Basavakalyan.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that the no confidence motion was illegal because respondents 4 and 5 (a Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Assembly) were not entitled to vote in the motion, and their participation vitiated the resolution.
Issues
Whether members of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and the Legislative Assembly of the State are entitled to vote in a no confidence motion against the President of a City Municipal Council under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that respondents 4 and 5, being a Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Assembly, are not entitled to vote in a no confidence motion under Section 42(3) read with Section 42(4) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and their participation rendered the motion illegal.
Respondents argued that the motion was validly passed by the members entitled to vote, and the votes of respondents 4 and 5 were not necessary for the majority.
Ratio Decidendi
The right of members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly to vote in the election of the President under Section 42(2A) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, does not extend to voting in a no confidence motion under Section 42(3) read with Section 42(4). The legislature intended a distinction between the election of the President and the removal of the President by no confidence motion. Therefore, such members are not entitled to vote in a no confidence motion.
Judgment Excerpts
The question raised in these writ petitions is whether the members of the house of the people (Lok Sabha) and the legislative assembly of the state are entitled to vote in a no confidence motion moved against the President of a City Municipal Council under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
Having regard to the scheme of Section 42 of the Act, I am of the view that the right to vote in the election of the President conferred on the members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly under sub-section (2A) of Section 42 does not extend to voting in a no confidence motion under sub-section (3) read with sub-section (4) of Section 42.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed on an unspecified date, heard and reserved for orders on 19.08.2015, and pronounced on 26.08.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964: 42(2A), 42(3), 42(4)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
