LexB.N. SHANKARAPPA versus UTHANUR SRINIVAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B.N. SHANKARAPPA v. UTHANUR SRINIVAS AND ORS. JANUARY 21, 1992 B [A.M. AHMADI, K.RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] Karnataka Zita Parishads, Taluk Panchayats Samithis, Manda/ Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983-Section 4(1), (2) read with Section l 4 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, l 897-Deputy Commissioner--Powers under-Whether he can exercise the power to c spec!/Y the headquarter from time to time-location of headquarter of a Mandal-Discretion of authority-8cope of--lnterference by Court when -)'~ ' discretion exercised arbitrarily. Karnataka Zila Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Manda[ Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, l 983-Section 4(2) read with D Section 14, the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1897-Con- struction-- Whether powers under exhaust once a Manda/ initially constituted and its headquarter specified. On 16.1.1986, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification constituting a Manda! under section 4 (1) of the Karnataka Zila E Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Manda! Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 and located4he headquarter of the Mandal at Mudiyannur. Later on exercising powers under section 4 (3) of the Act he changed the headquarter to Uthanpur. F On 14.12.1987 a writ petition (W.P.No. 7685/86) was filed chal- lenging the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that on passing _,,,'( a resolution by Mandal to change the headquarter from the existing place to another place, the Deputy Commissioner was to consider if G he would like to exercise power. under section 4 (2) of the Act. The Mand al passed a fresh resolution and thereupon the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification under section 4 (2) of the Act for change of headquarter and on 20.1.1988 the draft notification was published in the Gazette. ( H The respondents 1 to 10 filed a writ petition (W.P.No. 1888/8.8) ..,..__ 286 . " SHANKARAPPA v. SRINJVAS 287 before the High Court challenging the draft notification. The writ A petition was dismissed. Considering the resolution and the objections to the notifica- tion, the Deputy Commissioner issued another notification under section 4 (2) of the Act and the headquarter of the Mandal was changed from Uthanpur to Mudiyannur. · B The resp1mdents challenged the notification by filing a revision application under section 4 (3) of the Act which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. The respondents moved the High Court in W.P. No. 77 of 1989 C challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, against ~hich an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal .following an earlier decision of the High Court in Writ Application No. 2564 of 1987 dated 28.5.1991. The correctness of the decision of Division Bench of the High D Court was challenged in this appeal by special leave. E The appellant contended that once the power to specify the headquarter was conferred on the Deputy Commissioner by Section 4 (1) of the Act, it could be exercised from time to time by virtue of section 14 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1897; that the scheme ·of section 4 of the Act should be construed with the aid of F section 14 of the General Clauses Act in such a manner as not to leave a vacuum for the exercise of power for a change of headquarter; that if the High Court's view was approved, there could he no power vested in any authority whatsoever for changing or specifying the headquarter of the reconstituted Mandal which vacuum might lead to· avoidable complications; and that once the legislature invested G the Deputy Commission with the power to specify the headquarter under section 4 (1), subject to the modification by the Commis- sioner under section 4 (3), the power to alter the headquarter of a Manda! from time to time, if the occasion so required, must be read H into it. 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S.C.R. A The respondents submitted that while sub-section (2) of Sec- B c tion 4 of the Act in terms empowered the Deputy Commissioner to alter the headquarter of the Mandal because the headquarter once specified under section 4(1) should remain unaltered; that the act designedly did not confer any power on any authority whatsoever to change the headquarter once specified under section 4 (1). Allo'fing the appeal, this Court, HELD
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.