DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appellate Jurisdiction IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXI Rule 3(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2019 [Against the impugned final order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] IN THE MATTER OF : SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA ...PETITIONER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS PAPER – BOOK [For Index Kindly See Inside] ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: PAI AMIT Filed on 10.06.2020 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Sr. No. Date of Record of Proceedings Pages INDEX Sl. Particulars of Document Page No. part of which it Remarks No. belongs Part I Part II (Contents (Contents of paper of file Book) along) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) ( v) 1. Court Fee 2. O/R on Limitation A A 3. Listing Proforma A1-A2 A1-A2 4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3 5. Index of Record of Proceedings A-4 6. Limitation Report prepared by the A-5 Registry 7. Defect List A-6 8. Note Sheet NS1 to … 9. List of Dates B – Q 10. Impugned Order A copy of the impugned final order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. 1-25 No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru 11. Petition seeking Special leave to appeal along with affidavit. 26-42 12. Appendix Section 3 of the Karnataka 43 Lokayukta Act, 1984 13. Annexure P/1 A true copy of the letter No. Si Aa 44 Su E 168 SLU 2017 dated 24.07.2018 by the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice. 14. Annexure P/2 A true copy of the letter dated 45 14.09.2018 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister. 15. Annexure P/3 A true copy of the letter No. 46-47 PSCM/742/2019 dated 20.06.2019 by the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice. 16. Annexure P/4 A true copy of the letter dated 48 22.06.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister. 17. Annexure P/5 A true copy of the letter No. PSCM/1447/2019 dated 12.11.2019 49-50 of the Chief Minister to the Chief Justice. 18. Annexure P/6 A true copy of the letter dated 51-52 14.11.2019 by the Chief Justice to the Chief Minister. 19. Annexure P/7 A true copy of the Notification No. 53-54 DPAR 168 SLU 2017 dated 20.11.2019. 20. Annexure P/8 A true copy of the communication 55-57 SPIO No. 665/2019 dated 30.11.2019 21. Annexure P/9 A true copy of the Writ Petition No. 58-76 51684 of 2019 [GM-RES] PIL dated 02.12.2019 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. 22. Annexure P/10 A true copy of the Statement of 77-94 Objections dated 31.01.2020 filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2. 23. F/M 24. V/A 95 A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2020 IN THE MATTER OF : SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA ...PETITIONER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION 1. The Petition is/ are within time. 2. The Petition is barred by time and there is a delay of _____ days in filing the same against order dated 17.02.2020 an application for condonation of ____ days delay has been filed. 3. There is delay of __ days in refilling the petition and an application for condonation of __days delay in refilling has been filed. NEW DELHI SECTION OFFICER DATED: 10.06.2020 A-1 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING SECTION: II-A The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box): Central Act: (Title) : The Constitution of India Section: Article 226 Central Rule: (Title): N.A. Rule No (s): 27 State Act (Title): The Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 Section: Section 3 State Rule: (Title): N.A. Rule No (s): N.A. Impugned Interim Order: N.A. Impugned final Order/Decree: 17.02.2020 High Court: The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Names of Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.I. Arun 1. Nature of matter: CIVIL 2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No. 1: SAMAJ PARIVARTHANA SAMUDAYA (b) e-mail ID: N.A. (c) Mobile phone number: N. A. 3. (a) Respondent No.1: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. (b) e-mail ID: Not Known (c) Mobile phone number: Not Known 4. (a) Main category classification: (b) Sub classification: 5. Not to be listed before: N. A. 6. (A) Similar/Pending matter: No similar pending case. (B) Similar decided cases with citation: No similar cases have been decided. 7. Criminal Matters: NO a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: N/A b) FIR No. – N/A c) Police Station: N/A d) Sentence Awarded: N/A e) Period of Sentence Undergone including Period of Detention/Custody Undergone: N/A 8. Land Acquisition Matters: N.A. a) Date of Section 4 notification: N. A. b) Date of Section 6 notification: N. A. c) Date of Section 17 notification: N. A. 9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N. A. 10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only): N.A. Senior citizen>65 years: N.A. SC/ST: N.A. WOMAN: N.A. Disabled Legal Aid case: N.A. In custody: N.A. 11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): N. A. PAI AMIT AOR for petitioner(s)/appellants(s) Date: 10.06.2020 AOR CODE: 2649 [email protected] B SYNOPSIS The present petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is being filed against the final order dated 17.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 51684 of 2019 (GM-RES) PIL by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, by which the writ petition in public interest in the nature of quo warranto and seeking the quashing of Government Order dated 20.11.2019 appointed Respondent No. 4 as Upa-Lokayukata, was rejected by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and has been engaged in various activities in the realm of public life, and works in close co-operation with several other voluntary organisations, networks and movements to promote actions with people’s participation on a broader scale towards social transformation and to bring about larger collective impacts on the governmental policies, deliberated legislations and programmes for human-well being. The Petitioner is also been involved in several activities for the betterment of society in the protection of the natural resources, and also engaged in fighting corruption in public life. The Petitioner has also filed several writ petitions in public interest in this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble High Court, in furtherance of the activities mentioned above. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the Government of the State of Karnataka, and the Respondent C No. 3 is the Secretariat of the Hon’ble Governor of the State. Respondent No. 4 is a former Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of the Karnataka, whose appointment as Upa-Lokayukta by Respondents No. 1 to 3 has been challenged in the present proceedings. The principal question before this Hon’ble Court in the present proceedings is what would constitute “meaningful and effective consultation” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and whether the non-supply of relevant material to the Chief Justice, i.e. one of the consultees, would be contrary to the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in the case of Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117, while categorically holding that the view of the Chief Justice did not have any primacy of opinion, however, held (main opinion by K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J.): “77. The Chief Minister is legally obliged to consul the Chief Justice of the High Court and other four consultees, which is a mandatory requirement. The consultation must be meaningful and effective and mere eliciting the views or calling for recommendations would not suffice. The consultees can suggest various names from the source stipulated in the statute and those names have to be discussed either in a meeting to be convened by the Chief Minister of the State for that purpose or by way of circulation. The Chief Minister, if proposes to suggest or advise any D name from the source earmarked in the statute that must also be made available to the consultees so that they can also express their views on the name or names suggested by the Chief Minister. After due deliberations and making meaningful consultation, the Chief Minister of the State is free to advise a name which has come up for consideration among the consultees to the Governor of the State. The advice tendered by the Chief Minister will have primacy and not that of the consultees including the Chief Justice of the High Court. 78. …The Chief Minister, it may be noted, cannot advise a name from that source without making a meaningful and effective consultation after disclosing the relevant materials. This, in my view, is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary selection and advice. Further, as already noticed, the duties and functions of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta are investigative in nature and their orders as such cannot be executed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hand Book for Members of Karnataka Legislative Council
    HAND BOOK FOR MEMBERS OF KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL INTRODUCTION This Hand Book has been brought out for acquainting the Members with the salient features of the procedure in the House and the periods of notice with regard to legislative and other business coming up before the House and several facilities available to them. Part I contains the Instructions about giving notice of Questions, Motions, etc., under the Rules of Procedure. Part II contains facilities provided to each member of Legislative Council. Part III contains the Acts and Rules which are of special interest to members. It is hoped that this publication would be useful to Hon’ble members. For any further and detailed information, members may refer to the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council and relevant Articles of the Constitution of India. Any suggestions for it’s improvement are whole heartedly accepted. K.R. MAHALAKSHMI Bangalore Secretary (I/c) Sept. 2018 Karnataka Legislative Council i Part I - Legislative Business Page Nos. 1. Composition of Legislative Council 1-1 2. Duration of Legislative Council 1-1 3. Sessions of the Legislative Council 2-2 4. Oath or Affirmation by Members 2-3 5. Governor's Address 3-5 6. Election of Chairman / Deputy Chairman 5-5 7. Recognition of Parties or Group 6-6 8. Seating of Members 6-6 9. Time and Duration of Sittings 6-6 10. Government Business 7-7 11. Private Members Business 7-7 12. Quorum 7-7 13. Adjournment Motions 7-9 14. Discussion on Matters of Urgent Public Importance for Short Duration 9-9 15.
    [Show full text]
  • The Karnataka Legislature (Members Medical Attendance) Rules, 1968
    THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE (MEMBERS MEDICAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 1968 (As amended up to 1st Sept. 1997) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Karnataka Legislature Salaries Act, 1956 (Mysore Act 2 of the 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules, namely:- 1. Title and Commencement:- (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Legislature (Members medical Attendance) Rules, 1968. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on the tenth day of August 1967. 2. Definitions:- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "authorised medical attendant" means (i) in the case of Members residing in places where there are Government Hospitals or Dispensaries, the Medical Officers, whether Gazetted or Non-Gazetted, incharge of such Hospitals or Dispensaries. (ii) in the case of Members residing in places where there are no Government Hospitals or Dispensaries, the Medical Officers, whether Gazetted or Non- Gazetted, in charge of local fund dispensaries, health units or health centres, at such places; (iii) In the case of Members suffering from Tuberculosis and receiving treatment at the Karnataka Health Institute, Ghataprabha, the Chief Medical Officer of the said Institute); Provided that honorary Specialists, honorary Medical Officers part-time specialists and part-time Medical Officers shall not be deemed to be authorised Medical Attendants. b) "Controlling Officer" for the purpose of claims for reimbursement of expenditure incurred in connection with Medical Attendance,
    [Show full text]
  • (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956
    THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE (PREVENTION OF DISQUALIFICATION) ACT, 1956. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Sections : 1. Short Title. 2. Definitions. 3. Removal of certain disqualifications. * * * * STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS I Act 4 of 1957.- Consequent on the taking over of life insurance business by the Government of India, any member of the State Legislature holding an office of profit in any of the Insurance Companies whose life insurance business has been taken over, will incur disqualifications from membership of the State Legislature. The disqualification in respect of members of Parliament holding similar offices of profit has been removed by section 15 of the Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (Central Act 9 of 1956), and the Government of India have drawn attention of the State Government to this provision and have suggested consideration of enactment of similar law to cover cases of members of the State legislature. It is considered necessary to enact a similar law in the State. Hence the Bill. (Published in the Mysore Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 18-9-1956 at page 2) II Amending Act 35 of 1962.- At present the Home Guards Organisation is in existence only in the Bombay-Karnataka Districts of the State. In view of the present emergency it is considered necessary to have a voluntary body of person throughout the State to discharge duties in relation to the protection of persons, the security of property and preservation of public order in emergency. Hence, it is proposed to organise Home Guards in the entire State. In order to effectively control and administer the Organisation it is necessary to have a uniform law.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT of INDIA Page 1 of 7 CASE NO.: Appeal (Civil) 3633 of 2001
    http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3633 of 2001 PETITIONER: M.V. RAJASHEKARAN & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: VATAL NAGARAJ & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2002 BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik & R.P. Sethi JUDGMENT: WithCivil Appeal No.3714 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No.3844 of 2001 JUDGMENT PATTANAIK, J. These three appeals are directed against one and the same Judgment of the Karnataka High Court. An Election Petition was filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the present appellants as Members of the Karnataka Legislative Council and for declaring the said election as null and void inter alia on the ground that the nomination of Vatal Nagaraj, respondent No. 1 had been improperly rejected. Said Vatal Nagaraj was an ex M.L.A. and had been appointed as a One Man Commission by the Government of Karnataka by Order dated 18.4.2000 to study the problems of the Kannadigas in the Border areas of Kerala, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Goa and Tamil Nadu. By a subsequent order, the Chairman of the Commission was accorded the status of a Minister of Cabinet rank and thereafter by a Government Order dated 24.5.2000, for defraying the expenses of pay and day to day expenditure of the Chairman of the Commission, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was provided in the Budget estimate for the year 2000-2001. When election to the Karnataka Legislative Council was held for filling up 11 vacancies and said Vatal Nagaraj filed his nomination paper, on an objection being filed for accepting the nomination, the Returning Officer took up the scrutiny and rejected the nomination of said Vatal Nagaraj on a finding that he was holding an office of profit and as such was disqualified from being elected.
    [Show full text]
  • D.H. Shankaramurthy's Contributions to Karnataka Politics an Overview
    International Journal of Applied Research 2018; 4(12): 327-330 ISSN Print: 2394-7500 ISSN Online: 2394-5869 D.H. Shankaramurthy’s contributions to Karnataka Impact Factor: 5.2 IJAR 2018; 4(12): 327-330 politics an overview www.allresearchjournal.com Received: 13-10-2018 Accepted: 16-11-2018 Nagaraju MS and Dr. RN Dinesh Nagaraju MS Research Student and Abstract Assistant Professor of Political The political and economic democracy would not be much developed with out the true leaders of the Science, Government First nation. That is why Plato rightly asserted that “The philosopher king must rule the kingdom”. With out Grade College, Kunigal, the rich knowledge of the ruler the nation will not be in the proper forwardness. In this article, the Tumkur District Karnataka, researcher tries to study how the leadership qualify helps to the nation development and also explain India the contribution of D H Shankar Murthy to Karnataka politics and particularly to Shimoga district. The data used for his research article for the secondary data which has been collected from the books, Dr. RN Dinesh journals, Periodicals etc. Assistant Professor of Political Science and Research Guide, Keywords: Leader, democratic governance, people’s development, parliamentary democracy, University Evening College Mysore University, Mysore, contributions, politics Karnataka, India Introduction Shimoga is one of the district of the Karnataka state, is situated roughly in the mid-south- western part of the state. It had an eventful history and has rich cultural traditions. It is bestowed with abundant natural recourses. The western area of the district consists of a mountains terrain while on the eastern side, there is a striking transition from malnad and semi malnad to maidan.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Proceedings 01 September
    Regulation Review Committee Parliament of New South Wales Proceedings of the International Conference on Regulation Reform Management and Scrutiny of Legislation Parliament House, Sydney 9 - 13 July 2001 Report No 19/52 November 2001 This report was compiled using Microsoft Word 97 and printed by Parliamentary Printing Services New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data: International Conference on Regulation Reform Management and Scrutiny of Legislation (2001 : Sydney, N.S.W.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Regulation Reform Management and Scrutiny of Legislation, Parliament House, Sydney, 9-13 July 2001. [Sydney, N.S.W.] : Regulation Review Committee, Parliament of New South Wales, 2001. – 1 v. (various foliations) ; 30 cm. (Report no. 19/52, September 2001) ISBN 0 7347 6826 5 1. Delegated legislation—Congresses. I. Parliament of New South Wales. Regulation Review Committee. II. Title III. Series: New South Wales. Parliament. Regulation Review Committee. Report ; 52/19 348.025 (DDC21) _________________________________________________________________ International Conference on Regulation Reform Management & Scrutiny of Legislation 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMITTEE AND SECRETARIAT MEMBERS……………………………………………..1 CHAIRMAN’S FOREWORD…………………………………………………………..……….2 CONFERENCE PROGRAM…………………………………………..………………..……….4 PHOTO OF CONFERENCE DELEGATES….………………….….…………..……..……..12 LIST OF DELEGATES……………………………..………………………..…………...……13 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS……………………………………..………..……….18 Monday 9 July 2001 Welcome:
    [Show full text]
  • The Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956
    The Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 Act 4 of 1957 Keyword(s): Committee, Compensatory, Statutory Body, Disqualification Amendments appended: 17 of 2006, 7 of 2019 DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information by PRS Legislative Research (PRS). The contents of this document have been obtained from sources PRS believes to be reliable. These contents have not been independently verified, and PRS makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness. In some cases the Principal Act and/or Amendment Act may not be available. Principal Acts may or may not include subsequent amendments. For authoritative text, please contact the relevant state department concerned or refer to the latest government publication or the gazette notification. Any person using this material should take their own professional and legal advice before acting on any information contained in this document. PRS or any persons connected with it do not accept any liability arising from the use of this document. PRS or any persons connected with it shall not be in any way responsible for any loss, damage, or distress to any person on account of any action taken or not taken on the basis of this document. The Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 Act 4 of 1957 Keyword(s): Committee, Compensatory, Statutory Body, Disqualification Amendment appended: 17 of 2006 DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information by PRS Legislative Research (PRS). The contents of this document have been obtained from sources PRS believes to be reliable. These contents have not been independently verified, and PRS makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Karnataka Legislature Salaries, Pensions and Allowances Act, 1956
    The Karnataka Legislature Salaries, Pensions and Allowances Act, 1956 Act 2 of 1957 Keyword(s): Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Government Chief Whip, Leader of the Opposition, Residence, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Salary, Pension, Allowance Amendments appended: 14 of 2001, 1 of 2004, 24 of 2005, 16 of 2009, 27 of 2009, 6 of 2011, 32 of 2011, 22 of 2012, 7 of 2013, 8 of 2013, 8 of 2014, 18 of 2015 DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information by PRS Legislative Research (PRS). The contents of this document have been obtained from sources PRS believes to be reliable. These contents have not been independently verified, and PRS makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness. In some cases the Principal Act and/or Amendment Act may not be available. Principal Acts may or may not include subsequent amendments. For authoritative text, please contact the relevant state department concerned or refer to the latest government publication or the gazette notification. Any person using this material should take their own professional and legal advice before acting on any information contained in this document. PRS or any persons connected with it do not accept any liability arising from the use of this document. PRS or any persons connected with it shall not be in any way responsible for any loss, damage, or distress to any person on account of any action taken or not taken on the basis of this document. 1957: KAR. ACT 2] Legislature Salaries Pensions & Allowances 21 THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE SALARIES, PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT, 1956.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Gains from the Proposed Trifurcation of Bengaluru Municipal Corporation?
    Politics and Urban Governance Who gains from the proposed trifurcation of Bengaluru Municipal Corporation? S. Rajendran Sep 2, 2015 If the Karnataka government has its way, the 198-strong Bengaluru Municipal Corporation Council could soon be trifurcated into separate municipal bodies, each having about 70 corporators. This change is likely to alter the politics of local-self government in India's IT hub. File photo: The BBMP in session. The Hindu The results of the recent elections to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) are indicative of a vote against the programmes and policies of the Indian National Congress (INC) government in the State, and do not mean that the people have endorsed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which won lower number of seats than it did in 2010. A larger issue, however, as S. Rajendran points out, is the uncertainty facing local self-government in India's IT hub, with political parties differing on whether the city should be trifurcated or not. The election to the council of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP, Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation), which was held on August 22, 2015, resulted in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) retaining a majority in the 198-member civic body, winning 100 seats, followed by Indian National Congress (INC), the ruling party in the State, securing 75 seats. However, it is not yet clear if the BJP would head the civic body as efforts are on for a Congress-Janata Dal (Secular) tie-up to get to the seat of power in the BBMP. The larger question is whether the popular support extended to the BJP, as made out by the election results, would augur well for the overall development of Bengaluru, which has emerged as a major Information Technology hub over the past decade, accounting for more than 35 per cent of India’s software exports 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Karnataka Ordinance No. 04 of 2020 the Karnataka
    1 KARNATAKA ORDINANCE NO. 04 OF 2020 THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE SALARIES, PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2020 (Promulgated by the Governor of Karnataka in the Seventy first year of the Republic of India and First published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on the 10th day of April, 2020) An Ordinance further to amend the Karnataka Legislature Salaries, Pensions and Allowances Act, 1956 (Karnataka Act 2 of 1957) and the Karnataka Ministers Salaries and Allowances, Act, 1956 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1957). WHEREAS Karnataka, as the rest of the India, is grappling with Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic which has severe health and economic ramifications for the people of the state; AND WHEREAS the Corona Virus (COVID-19) pandemic has shown the importance of expeditious relief and assistance and therefore, it is necessary to take certain emergency measures to prevent and contain the spread of said pandemic; AND WHEREAS in order to manage and control such situation, it has become necessary to raise resources by reduction of salaries and allowances of Chief Minister, Minister, Minister of State and Deputy Minister, Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Leader of Opposition, Government Chief Whip, Opposition Chief Whip, Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council; Whereas the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Karnataka Legislative Council are not in session and the Governor of Karnataka is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action to promulgate the Ordinance for the purposes hereinafter appearing; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Karnataka is pleased to promulgate the following Ordinance, namely:- 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background of Karnataka Legislature
    Historical Background of Karnataka legislature: KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY The erstwhile princely state of Mysore under the rule of enlightened Wodeyar's was a progressive state and was harbinger of democratic Governance. The association of people with the administration of the state in an elementary form was started in the eighties of the 19th century. In March 1881 his Highness the Maharaja Sri Chamarajendra Wadiyar assumed powers of the State. The Mysore Representative Assembly was inaugurated in the same year. The establishment of a deliberative Assembly proposed by the Chief Commissioner of Mysore Mr. J.D. Gordon in 1879 as one of the conditions for transfer of Mysore to the Maharaja was not favoured by the then Government of India. The Chief Commissioner had suggested the formation of deliberative Assembly composed of eminent retired officials, representative of various sections and interests of the people. The Government of India did not favour the constitution of an Assembly as it felt that a deliberative Assembly, with no specific legislative, financial or executive authority possessing only the power of recording opinions which need not be accepted tended, to fall out of repute or develop into greater activity and influence than that might have been originally contemplated. The Viceroy while writing to the Secretary to the State, observed that it might be premature to introduce in the beginning an institution which had not yet been tried in British India. However, an order for the constitution of the Assembly was issued by the Maharaja on 25th August 1881. The order stated that His Highness the Maharaja was desirous that the views and objects which his Government had in view in the measures adopted for the administration of the province should be better known and appreciated by the people for whose benefit they were intended and that he was of opinion that a beginning towards the attainment of this object might be made by an annual meeting of the representative landholders and merchants from all parts of the Province.
    [Show full text]