W.A.No.3207/2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT APPEAL NO.3207 OF 2018 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SRI RAVI R. S/O K. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ANJENEYA TEMPLE, SIDLIPURA SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. KAVITHA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.R. GAYATHRI W/O SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DANAYAKAPURA VILLAGE SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O RAJESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SIDLIPURA VILLAGE, SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. W.A.No.3207/2018 -2- 3. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SIDLIPURA VILLAGE SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 4. SRI GHOUSE MOHODDIN S/O IBRAHIM SAHEB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SIDLIPURA HOSURU VILLAGE SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 5. SMT. LATHA W/O SHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SIDLIPURA HOSURU VILLAGE SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 6. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DANAYAKAPURA VILLAGE SIDLIPURA POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 227 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301. 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ELECTION OFFICER SUB DIVISION SHIMOGA - 577 201. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R-8) W.A.No.3207/2018 -3- THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.10.2018 IN W.P.NO.37150/2018 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner with a considered order, while observing, inter alia, as under:
“4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The contention of the petitioner that the ‘Second No Confidence Motion’ cannot be moved since the ‘First No Confidence Motion’ has failed is opposed to the facts. There is no ‘No Confidence Motion’ that has taken place against the petitioner. The earlier proceedings were dropped at the initial stage itself without holding ‘No Confidence Motion’. Therefore, the present ‘No Confidence Motion’ is in accordance with law. Under these circumstances, since no other contentions are raised, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.”
Having examined the record, we are unable to find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
W.A.No.3207/2018 The earlier so-called no-confidence motion had only remained a proposition and it is obvious on the face of the record that the said no-confidence motion was in fact never taken up for consideration and cannot be said to be the ‘first motion’ for the purpose of operation of the bar of moving the ‘second motion’.
That being the position, there appears no reason to consider any interference in this appeal.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
In common law, a writ (Anglo-Saxon gewrit, Latin breve) is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a court. Warrants, prerogative writs, and subpoenas are common types of writ, but many forms exist and have existed.
In its earliest form a writ was simply a written order made by the English monarch to a specified person to undertake a specified action; for example, in the feudal era a military summons by the king to one of his tenants-in-chief to appear dressed for battle with retinue at a certain place and time. An early usage survives in the United Kingdom, Canadaand Australia in a writ of election, which is a written order issued on behalf of the monarch (in Canada, by the Governor General and, in Australia, by the Governor-General for elections for the House of Representatives, or State Governors for State elections) to local officials (High Sheriffs of every county in the historical UK) to hold a general election. Writs were used by the medieval English kings to summon persons to Parliament, (then consisting primarily of the House of Lords) whose advice was considered valuable or who were particularly influential, and who were thereby deemed to have been created “barons by writ“.