Karnataka High Court
N. Guddappa Poojary vs Assistant Commissioner, Puttur And ... on 28 June, 1996
Equivalent citations: ILR1997KAR1009, 1997(2)KARLJ497
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur
ORDER
Tirath S. Thakur, J
1. Resolution dated 8th December 1995, passed by Balpa Grama Panchayat, removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha of the said Panchayat is called in question in this Writ Petition. The petition also seeks a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner, to declare that Respondents No. 3 and 4, have ceased to be Members of the Grama Panchayat or in the alternative for a direction to consider and dispose of the application filed by him in that regard.
2. Heard.
3. In so far as challenge to Resolution dated 8th of December, 1995 removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha on the basis of a no confidence motion against him is concerned, the only ground of attack urged is that two of the members of the Panchayat namely Respondents-3 and 4 had ceased to be Members on account of their having remained absent in more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat without leave of the said Panchayat, as also on account of their remaining absent from the Panchayat area for more than four consecutive months. Mr. Shastry argued that in terms of Section 13(1)(c) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act any member who absents himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat without the leave of the Grama Panchayat or is absent from the Panchayat area for more than four consecutive months; loses his membership of the Panchayat. Having so absented themselves, argued the Learned Counsel, Respondents 3 and 4 had lost their Membership of the Panchayat and could not therefore have participated in the No confidence Motion proceedings held against him on 8th of December, 1995.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made but find no merit in the same. The argument so strenuously advanced by Mr. Shastry, appears to over-look the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act, according to which, should any question arise as to whether a Member is or has become subject to any disqualification under Section 13(1), the Assistant Commissioner, may either suo motu or on a report made on him in that regard decide the same. Section 13(2) reads thus :
"If any question arises as to whether a person is, or has become subject to disqualification under Section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may either suo motu or on a report made to him and after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, decide the question."
5. A plain reading of the provision suggests that as and when a question regarding disqualification of a Member is raised the same shall have to be determined by the Assistant Commissioner. No such determination has however been made by the Assistant Commissioner in the instant case, no matter the petitioner claims to have raised the issue before the Assistant Commissioner. In the absence of any determination as aforesaid, it is difficult to hold that Respondents-3 and 4 had lost their membership so as to disentitle them to participate in the No Confidence Motion proceedings. The first limb of the petitioner's case fails and is accordingly rejected.
6. That brings me to the alternative case set up by the petitioner, according to whom the applications made by the petitioner seeking disqualification of Respondents-3 and 4, have not been considered by the Assistant Commissioner, nor has the question raised therein been determined by him. This does not appear to be entirely true for a perusal of orders marked ANNEXURES-J & N to the Writ Petition dated 3rd and 14th of November, 1995 shows that some of these applications have been disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner. All the same, if there are any other applications that remain to be considered and disposed of it is open to him to pursue the same with the Assistant Commissioner. There is nothing on record as at present to suggest that the petitioner has taken up the matter with the Assistant Commissioner with the same seriousness as is shown in the present proceedings. Reserving liberty for the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner for a determination of the issue raised by him, this Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Needless to mention that in case the Assistant Commissioner, has not taken any final view on the subject based on the applications filed before him, he may do so with reasonable despatch.