State Legislators Not Disqualified From Holding Posts In Committees, Society: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition filed questioning the appointment of S R Vishwanath, MLA from Yelahanka Assembly Constituency as Chairman of Bangalore Development Authority.

The petitioner, advocate Harish. A. S referring to the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, had contended that the Chairman who is a sitting MLA cannot be a whole time member of the Authority and therefore, is ineligible to hold the post. In addition, no method of appointment was prescribed for appointment to the posts of Engineer, Finance and Town Planner Members of the Authority.

A writ of quo warranto was sought prohibiting the MLA and respondent Nos.5 to 7 from performing the duties of the post of Chairman, Engineer, Finance and the Town Planner Members of the Authority.

Findings:

Firstly, the bench said that in view of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 to declare certain office of profit not to disqualify their holders for being chosen as or for being Members of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. 

"Thus, a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is not disqualified from holding the post of Chairman of any Committee or of any society."

Further it noted that section 3(d) of the 1956 Act provides that Members of Karnataka Legislative Assembly or Karnataka Legislative Council would not be disqualified to hold the post of Chairman or Member of the Committee. However, the petitioner had not challenged the validity of 1956 Act.

Following which it held,

"Thus, from conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 2(a) and 3(d) of the 1956 Act, it is evident that Chairman is not disqualified to hold the post of Chairman of the Authority. It is worth mentioning that the issue with regard to disqualification of the Chairman is pending adjudication before His Excellency the Governor under Article 192 of the Constitution of India. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ of mandamus was sought for by the petitioner in W.P. No.19421/2021 to take a time bound action to disqualify the Chairman as Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly cannot be granted."

Further it held,

"The provisions of the 1976 Act read as a whole and Section 4 in particular which expressly deals with disqualification for office of member, do not contain any express prohibition that a Chairman of the Authority cannot have any other avocation. If the Legislature intended that the Chairman of the Authority cannot have any other avocation, it would have expressly provided so in Section 4 while dealing with disqualification under Section 4 of the 1976 Act."

It added, "It is not the case of the petitioner that the Chairman is not available to attend the duties of the office of the Chairman of the Authority. The expression "whole time member" used in Section 3(5) of the 1976 Act, thus read, means that a Member who is available to attend the duties of the office of Chairman."

Dismissing the prayer seeking writ of quo warranto be issued to quash the appointment of respondents the bench said,

"The Bangalore Development Authority (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 provide for appointment of Engineer, Finance and Town Planner Members of the Authority. However, the aforesaid Rules are silent with regard to manner of appointment. In the facts of the case and taking into account the fact that respondent Nos.5 to 7 are eligible and have the requisite qualification to be appointed as Engineer or Finance or Town Planner Members, writ of quo warranto can be issued to quash their appointments."

Finally it held, "In view of preceding analysis, in our opinion, the appointments of Chairman and Members of the Authority do not suffer from any infirmity. However, the State Government is directed to frame guidelines for appointment to the post of Engineer or Finance or Town Planner Members of the Authority, so that future appointments to the said posts can be made in consonance with the guidelines which may be framed by the Government."

Case Title: HARISH A.S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: W.P. NO.18278 OF 2021 C/W W.P. NO.19421 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

Date of order: 03-09-2022

Appearance: Advocate PRASHANTH BHUSHAN, FOR MR. PRINCE ISAC for petitioner; Advocate General PRABHULING K. NAVADGI A/W AGA VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, FOR R1 & R2; Senior Advocate D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, FOR Advocate K. KRISHNA, FOR R3; Senior Advocate S.S. NAGANAND, for Advocate BIPIN HEGDE, FOR R4; Advocate B. VACHAN, FOR R5; Advocate J.C. KUMAR, FOR R6

Click Here To Read/Download Order