Sri. Ravi R vs Smt.K.R.Gayathri on 11 December, 2018

Sri. Ravi R vs Smt.K.R.Gayathri on 11 December, 2018

Karnataka High Court
Author: Chief Justice S.Sujatha
                                             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.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE ca

Writ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

In common law, a writ (Anglo-Saxon gewrit, Latin breve)[1] is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction; in modern usage, this body is generally a courtWarrantsprerogative 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.[2] An early usage survives in the United KingdomCanadaand 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,[3] (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“.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *