Karnataka High Court
Smt Sowbhagya vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2013
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
WRIT PETITION NO:6531-6534/2013 (S-RES)
&
WRIT PETITION NOs.6535-38/2013,
WRIT PETITION NOs.6539-42/2013,
WRIT PETITION NOs.6543-44/2013,
WRIT PETITION NO.6875/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SOWBHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O DODDA BASAVEGOWDA
R/O KUPYA VILLAGE & POST
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 110
2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O SOMASUNDAR V.
D.NO.331, GOPALAPURA, BYRAPURA VILLAGE
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 124
3. SMT. BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O PUTTASWAMY
R/AT NO.82, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, INKAL VILLAGE,
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT-570 017
4. SMT. CHIKKAMMA @ CHIKKATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2
W/O RAMU
R/O KADAVEKATTA HUNDI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI, YADAKOLA POST, MYSORE TALUK &
DISTRICT
5. SMT. PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YERARS
W/O SIDDARAJU
R/AT NO.200, DHADAHALLI VILLAGE, SINDUVALLI POST,
JAIPURA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK & DISTERICT-571311
6. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YERARS
W/O SHANKAR
NO.495, RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE & POST, KASABA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT-571019
7. SMT. SUNANDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O RAMESH
R/AT NO.218,
RAJAMANGALA VILLAGE & POST,
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT -570021
8. SMT. SUJATHA B.C.
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O K.S. MANJAPPA
R/O DIDDIGE VILLAGE & POST,
JAGALOOR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
9. SMT. T. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O G.H. RAJU
R/O ARUNDI VILALGE
HONNALI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
3
10. SMT.BYAGYALAXMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O. LATE CHIKKAMALLAPPA,
R/O. VARLAKINDA VILLAGE & POST,
VIA PERASANDRA,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKABALLAPAUR DISTRICT.
11. SMT. C.PADMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O.KRISHNA REDDY,
R/O. UCHHODHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
12. SMT.MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA,
R/O. HOSAOOR VILLAGE,GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
13. SMT.K.LAXMINARASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O A GANGADHARAPPA,
R/O YELLOODU VILLAGE,
C.K.HALLI POST,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
14. SMT.P.JAYALAXMI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O. K.RAMAPPA,
R/O KACHIKERE VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
15. SMT.K.D.DHANYA RATHI
AGED ABOAUT 41 YEARS,
W/O B.T.POOVAIAH,
R/O. MALDHARE VILLAGE & POST,
4
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: H C SHIVARAMU, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
1ST FLOOR, M.S.BUILLDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD DEPARTMENT,
NO.9/1, 3RD FLOOR,
OPPOSITE TO KRISHNA DHAMA,
SAHUKAR CHANNAIAH ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE - 570 001
5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
MYSORE RURAL,
MYSORE 570 001
5
6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
HARPANAHALLI TALUK - 583 131
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001
7. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT,
GUDIBANDE TALUK - 561 209
CHICKBALLAPAUR DISTRICT - 562 101
8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
GAURIBIDANUR TALUK - 561 208
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101
9. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
PONNAMPETE,
VIRAJPET TALUK - 571 218
KODAGU DISTRICT- 571 201
10. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
HONNALI TALUK, HONNALI 577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001
11. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
JAGALOOR
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 528
12. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DAVANAGERE - 577 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATHRI, HCGP FOR R2-12;
R1 SERVED)
6
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 1.4.11 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNX-D
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FINAL NOTICES ALL
DATED 9.1.13 VIDE ANNX-E TO E6 ISSUED BY R4 ,OFFICIAL
MEMORANDUM DATED 22.11.12, ISSUED BY R11 VIDE ANNX-
E7 AGAIN FINAL NOTICE DATED 9.12.11,ISSUED BY R10 VIDE
ANNX-E8, OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.1.13 ISSUED
BY R12 VIDE ANNX-E9, NOTICES DATED 7.12.12 ISSUED BY
R7 VIDE ANNX-E10 OFFICIAL LETTER DATED 21.11.12 VIDE
ANNX-E11 ISSUED BY R8 NOTICE DATED 7.11.12 ISSUED BY
R7 VIDE ANNEXURE E12 AND NOTICE DATED 09.11.2012
ISSUED BY R9 VIDE E13.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notices dated 09.01.2013, 22.11.2012, 09.12.2011, 17.01.2013, 07.12.2012, 21.11.2012 and 09.11.2012 as per Annexure - E to E(13).
7
2. In these notices the respondents directed the petitioners to exercise option either to continue as Anganawadi Worker or as Elected Member of the Grama Panchayath.
3. The learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.63085/2011 and connected matters vide order dated 03.06.2011 held that the candidate is not entitled to continue both as Anganawadi worker and Elected member of Grama Panchayath. This order of learned Single Judge came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6464/2011 and connected matters vide order dated 13.02.2012. It is on the basis of these judicial pronouncements, the respondents have issued impugned notices to the petitioners.
4. Sri.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that on the permission granted by the respondents, the petitioners contested the election to Grama Panchayath. Therefore, he contends that the 8 impugned notices are bad in law. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of S.R.RANGAPPA V/S. GIRIJAKUMAR reported IN ILR 1990 KARNATAKA 3256 and contend that the office of membership to the Grama Panchayath is honorary job and therefore, there is no legal impediment to the petitioners to continue both as Anganawadi Worker and Elected Members of Grama Panchayath. Permitting a person to contest election is different from continuing to hold the office as elected member of the Grama Panchayath. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the conflict of interest between two posts i.e., as Anganawadi Worker and Elected Representative of Grama Panchayath was not the subject matter and the same was not considered. On the other hand, the decision relied on by the respondents to issue the impugned notices held that there is conflict of interest in holding the office of Grama Panchayath and also Anganawadi Worker. In the circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned 9 counsel for the petitioners will not be of any use to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions are hereby rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted reply to the impugned notices. If that is so then the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ*