- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 27573 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SWAMYGOWDA S/O MARILINGIAHAGOWDA AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC TOWN PLANNING MEMBER HUNSUR TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY DISTRICT MYSORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT MS BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-1 2. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HUNSUR, BY ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER HUNSUR DISTRICT MYSORE -571105 3. THE HUNSUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HUNSUR, BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. HUNSUR, DISTRICT MYSORE-571105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.S.TOTAD., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO RESOLUTION ITEM Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 NO. 88 IN MEETING OF THE R-2 TO BE HELD ON 10.10.24, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging the resolution of the Municipality by which the Municipality has decided to nominate another councillor in place of the petitioner, who had been nominated earlier as a member of the Planning Authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that once a councillor is nominated to be a member of the Planning Authority under Section 4-C (iii)(a) of the Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961 (the ‘KTCP’ Act), he has an indefeasible right to continue to be a member of the planning authority until he ceases to be a member of the local authority. 3. In other words, it is the case of the petitioner that once he has been nominated to be a member of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 Planning Authority he has an unrestricted right to continue till he is a member of that local authority. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. 4. Section 4-C categorically states that every Planning Authority constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 4-C shall consist of the members mentioned therein, Clause (iii) (a) reads as follows: “iii) representatives of local bodies composed as follows. - (a) in the case of a planning area in which only one local authority has jurisdiction, a representative nominated by that local authority from among the members of that authority and the Chief Executive Officer of that local authority;”. 5. As could be seen from the above, the representative of the Local Body, who are nominated by that local authority have a right to be a part of the planning authority. However, this power of nomination would always be the prerogative of the local authority. The local authority can always withdraw its nomination and make a fresh nomination. There is nothing in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 Section 4-C which indicates that the local authority does not possess the power to withdraw the nomination that it had made earlier and make a fresh nomination. 6. The argument of the learned counsel that because Section 4-D (2) assures the member nominated to continue to be a member of the Planning Authority till he continues to be a member of the local body is concerned cannot be an acceptable argument. 7. Section 4-D(2) basically clarifies that a member of the local authority even on nomination cannot continue beyond his term as a member of that local authority. 8. In other words, the membership of the Planning Authority of a member nominated by the local authority is coterminus with his term as a member of the local authority. This cannot therefore lead to an inference that the power of nomination can be exercised only once by the local authority and once a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 nomination is made, the local authority cannot withdraw its nomination and make a fresh nomination . 9. In my view, therefore, the concerned Municipality had the jurisdiction to withdraw the nomination that it had made earlier and make a fresh nomination. 10. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel judgment referred to in C.N.Ramaswamy’s case1 will also be not applicable, since in that particular case, this Court, was only dealing with the question as to whether the Municipality while making a nomination could restrict the nomination for a particular year. This Court has not considered the question as to whether the Municipality has the power to withdraw a nomination and therefore the said decision would be inapplicable to the facts of this case. 1 C.N.Ramaswamy Vs. Town Municipal Council, Chickmagalur – AIR 1988 KAR 168 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3823 WP No. 27573 of 2024 11. In my view, the provisions of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the power to make a nomination and withdraw the nomination is always inherent in the power of appointment and that cannot be scuttled by the nominate member by contending that he has a right to be a member of the Planning Authority until he is a member of the local authority. 12. This petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6