Sri T M Umashankar vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 9 April, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri T M Umashankar vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 9 April, 2009

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA,   _

DATE!) TEII8 Tim 9th DAY or APE?.I3i{  T  

BEFORET' 1   &
THE HOWBLE MR. JI}STZ{';3'.§?,_V 
WRIT PETITION no.99§ $7r .hm='.V  
BETWEEN ; A   A 

1 T M UMASHANKAR ' , 
S] 0. Mamtgvslﬁ-ZDAPRA   'V
AGE : 58] Yli;A"R.S.V   _ ' 

R] AT 1'I1'V'3  'NR,YAKAN;K}L%I;§§i  '
SOMPGRA.    ._  

 T I

2 M GV._RAJAS'}iEKARA'£AH
S] 0. GANGADARAi'AH
531GB : 52'-YEARS %
3 {A11 MAD1:m.AnALL1,
_  LAKKUR_ POST, SOMPURA HOBLI
' * .. V NEELAMTANGALA TALUK.

3*  "~GvS'i~'AI.I7'~'AA)?5h§i}MAR

 T (_3rANGAPPA
AGE ; '47 YEARS
SQMPURA VILLAGE

V n 'TTRNELMANGALA TALUK.

~  4-I  HSREVANASIDBAPPA

s/0. REVAIAH
AGE : 33 YEARS
SOMPURA VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALU K.

5 HANNUMANTHAIAH
s/ 0. HANUMAIAH 

 



AGE : 49 YEARS

R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE
LAKKUR POST
NELMANGALA TALL} K.

V VEERABI-IADRAIAH   '

s/0. VEERANANJAPPA
AGE ; 53 YEARS

R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK." _ 

SHIVASHANKAR
S/O. RUDRAIAH,  
AGE:42 YEARS  _ ._ 
R/AT SOMPURA VILLAGE»  
NELAMANGALA 'rAI_!.:1{;V. '

L;.i{sHgvtAMav;A. " _ . 
wt/0. T¥&'E£sﬂh¢1£iGA;'\lC'§A_1AH _'
AGE 2 as YEARS  _    _

R] A': PAMANA~§§mLL§__ViLLAGE
NELAPAAMGALAATALLIK.

..  I«2A.MAIAH--. . ..... 14x
- sire. NEJAGALLU KAMPA HALL!

' * 1. _ AGE. ; 45- YEARS

VA10

  ESOMFURA VILLAGE
---.VANELA'MAI?§GALA TALUK.

 GA1§GAivtMA

W'.[G. GANGARAJU

V ~  AGE : 40 YEARS
_ "R/AT BARATHIPURA YEDEHALLI
' " NELAMANGALA TALUK.

CHOWDAMMA
w/0. RAJANNA
AGE : 45 YEARS
R/AT YEDEHALLI VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK. 1

 



12

13

14

15

Ana:

M T KEMPANNA
s/0. TAPASIMUNIYAPPA

AGE : 58 YEARS

R/AT NIDAVANDA VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK.

G KEMPEGOWDA

S/O. GOVINDAPPA
AGE:40 YEARS    ~  ;
R/AT BARATHIPURA, YE[)_EHALLI' VILLAGE  "
NELAMANGALA TALUK. L *   
ATHAULLA KHAN _  _   1. .

s/0. ZAHIR ULLA KHAN;  L

AGE:4S YEARS -- _  i  V

RIAT KARQMNNE"V:LLAGEf-.._ _
NELAMA¥iGi3I;A TALL:I:;~"  f  .. 

   n 
w/'Q, PARAMESHI  *'
AGE :*--35vYEARS., ' L'

; R/AT NIDAVANDA VILLAGE
_~ ﬁ1§;LAMANGAI,A__T»ALU K.

 PETITIONERS

 ~{ﬁ':.r_T-:"3'IA<:.;f:'2g*--.._ 1;'i5;§.E§_:aaA KUMAR, ADV)

S'E':§3i'E OF KARNATAKA

" < 4_ RERBY ITS SECRETARY
i:nEpAR'rMEN'r or PANCHAYAT RAJ

V' " M S BUILDINGS

Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEBHI
BANGALORE - 1.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
BANGALORE. 

  wk



3 THE RETURNING OFFICER]
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGI_N.E_EI-"rt _  .
ZILLA PANCHAYAT sU13--Dms1oN"~ ._  .: 
NELAMANGALA TALUK   .. 
BANGALORE RURAL ms'1'R1c'r.__ 

BANGALORE.  

4 KENCHAMMA  
W/O. KEMPARANGrAIAH,<'"" -  
AGE:35 YEARS  ,   '
R/AT KARIMANYA VILLAGE 
HEGGUNDA    Av
SOMPUR_A--IjIG_I3LI§: A    
NELAMANGALA TALUK f  'A 
BANGALf)~RE-vi?£URAL.__I3ES'I'i?ICF.__ ~

A s;  '   .  .  *  RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1, R __D§3VZ13,AS_;'__ . ;

'rHI:3_ WRIT'PFﬁ' I'TE:_G*§i. 'rs"F1LED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 01;: THE -c0.NS1:;'rUT:oN 01+' INDIA PRAYING TO -
QUASHV THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 26.3.09 ISSUED BY Taw-

 ﬂ R3 _':'D HOLD ELEC.'.FIQNS FOR THE POST OF PRESIDENT
 '-"Am SOMPURA GRAM PANCI-IAYAT VIDE ANNEXURE-«F AND

'--  "'vA'I'f.¥II§--"Aj1;3.'V3:7:IV'I'V'PI0N, COMING ON FOR PRL.I-IEARING,
THIS DA'? THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

ORDER

Fifteen out of 19 members of Somapura Gram '4 Panchayath, aggieved by the notiﬁcation dated 26.3.2009 of the Returning Qﬁicer, Zilla Panchayath - ,!""( 31"" respondent convening the meeting on hold elections to the Office of _fhe.__ ' K V' Panchayath, have presented certiorari to quash the netiI_';e:.1ﬁon§" .__for_ m": us " V directing the respondeijxts 'ts--Vdeeneider"thee-petitioners' representation dated G; and a writ of ma13deej1§.1s ff-espondents to consider " ijifepzesentation dated 2.4.2ee9%Ae::exu£é A. 2... tdttie. petitioners the 4"! respondent .' V. duty elected to the membership of reserved for Scheduled Tribe, when elected tliriied oﬁice of President of Somapura Gram also reserved for Scheduled mm though from the oﬁice for Want ef Confidence, would elected, unopposed to the said oiﬁce once over, without a position to command majority in the Panchayath. ;\ xi ek

3. The petitioners contend that-* respondent having committed serious of K "

misappropriating funds of brought to the notice of the"tSt;ate for " L' disqualiﬁcation, under The pancmgam Raj Act, 1993 remained to invoking the writ jurisdicticn whence this court H * 2009 Ammxnre E, reccrditi,-*gVVtheV the learned Govt. Advocate that _r_he pe'ti!jc1ief's "-fejsnresentation dated 15.12.2003 V. 'An wctéiidm considered in accordance with 'V ifef the petition granting three months fer' eciijpliance. It is next; contended that the the Office of the President to be held 15.4.2009 is contrary tothe Election Code, in % -thfe wake of General Elections. ya

4. Having heard the learned "

petitioner who reiterates the averments writ petition, it is no doubt'"""t:rne circumstances discloses a piqunn_t1'*.V_situ,otVion'v a"

person in whom No (hnﬁdence V. would be elected to though not in a position to in the Panchayath ;Wi:ie11 would to astaiemate in the a Division Bench 5: tr1is'e'o2irt..V_:i1:::'BAPU DADA vs. STATE op 1996(7) Kar.LJ 2 15 (1313) While V' otjtto the'sitoation, observed that though it _w?a.s Viegislature to bestow its attention to that aspeet provide for such contingency. It is a matter of fact that although 13 years i' hove gone by since the aforesaid observation of the , Division Bench of this court, nothing precious is done by the State. It is hoped that the State would open :~<.{ ,5 its eyes and bestow its attention in that 'at least now.

5. The contention Vthat»':"._t:he ought not to be permitted to 'contest V. the to the V Office of the Presiden"t__Areserv. Tribe, and that reservation must be changed, cannet.._bje ,V "that the petitioners have made a 15.12.2008 Annexure~D < _ca11iﬁg the~ State to initiate action against 4'11

---disqualify her from membership of t1ie °(«}ra_mA.'.V'V't1pétnchayath and in respect of which this 'gcourt " VW.P.6931/2009 by order dated 26.3.2009 "it: E disposed oﬁ' the petition recording the h snbmission of the leamed Govt. Advocate that the authority would consider and take action in accordance with law, granting 3 months for compliance, which »<'.j...*'w{ 9 ends with 2531 dey of June, 2009, does not call for interference with the notiﬁcation impugned. F

7. In the light of the fact that me"-4':tietittetief.'e_'e representation aliegng that ttzew' 4th. ' committed acts of misappmprdalioxi, = ~. considered by the authority,' the V 4th respondent is g1LiIty._'_ oféchattgyesdso as to disentit.'i'e--VdVhet;7t0 eleetion to the Oﬁice of the Px'eside'1:«tVV' ext "Ifi that View of the matter, the repreeentatibrle ' ~ .v'A1ii1e$kt1res G and H to stall the . V. 'eieettii:e1i"t:*to'Vt' the of the President scheduled on Vtdisdwithout merit and does not call for iI1terfeI'enoe.}' dd the result, this writ petition is without merit is rejected. a Regstry is directed to address a iettcr to L. % Secretary, Department of Panchayath I¥2aj,§:<;=:n<:::I:(§SiIigpa'c'_.' copy of this order, for needful action. Csg ..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court