The High Court of Karnataka has said that the appointments of MLA S.R. Vishwanath as the chairman of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and three other individuals as members does not suffer from any infirmity.
However, the Court directed the State government to frame guidelines for appointment to the posts of engineer, finance and town planner members of BDA so that future appointments to these posts are done as per such guidelines.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty passed the order while disposing of two PIL petitions filed by Harish A.S., a city-based advocate.
In one petition, he had complained that Mr. Vishwanath is disqualified to be an MLA in view of he being appointed as Chairman of the BDA, which is ‘an office of profit’ attracting disqualification. In another petition, he had questioned appointment of three individuals – S.M. Ram Prasad, H.R. Shantharajanna and Suma as finance, engineering and town planner members respectively of the BDA.
However, the Court said that the Section 3(d) of the Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 makes it clear that Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly or the Karnataka Legislative Council would not be disqualified to hold the post of Chairman or Member of the Committees, Commission, Council, Board or any other bodies set up by the State government.
“Therefore, legislature while enacting the BDA Act, 1976 could not have intended to render Section 3(d) of 1956 Act otiose. It cannot lightly be assumed that Legislature has given with one hand, what it took away from the other,” the Court said while pointing out that BDA Act does not prohibit its chairman from having any other avocation.
The Court has found that three other individuals were eligible and have the requisite qualification to be appointed as engineer, finance and town planner members.
However, while noticing that the BDA (Cadre and Recruitment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Regulations, 2004 silent on the manner of appointment, the Court directed the government to frame guidelines for appointing members.
