STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. LAKSHMAPPA KALLAPPA BALAGANUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT appeals are filed by the state of Karnataka and others assailing the judgment of the learned singe judge declaring sub-section (2) of Section 159 of the Karnataka panchayat RAJ Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as the 'act') to the extent it prohibits the members of the house of the people, the state legislative assembly, the council of states, the state legislative council and adhyakshas of taluk panchayats, referred to in clauses (ii) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 159 of the Act, from participating in the meeting convened for considering the no-confidence motion moved against the adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of a zilla panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 179 of the Act, is illegal, void and unconstitutional and declaring that the words "or for considering a no-confidence motion under sub-section (3) of Section 179" contained in sub-section (2) of Section 159 of the act are struck down as void and unconstitutional; further, declaring sub-section (3) of Section 179 of the act to the extent it prohibits the members of the house of the people, the state legislative assembly, the council of state, the state legislative council and adhyakshas of taluk panchayats, from participating in the meeting convened for considering no-confidence motion against the adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of a zilla panchayat is illegal, void and unconstitutional in law. Accordingly, the word "elected" found immediately after the words "majority of the total number of and before the words "members of a zilla panchayat at a meeting specially convened for this purpose" in sub-section (3) of Section 179 of the Act, is struck down as unconstitutional and quashing the meeting notice dated 25th of February, 1999 issued by the chief executive officer of bagalkot zilla panchayat.

(2.) WRIT appeals are filed aggrieved of the judgment of the learned single judge and writ petitions which are filed challenging the validity of some of the Provisions of the act are also posted along with the writ appeals. Since interpretations of the Provisions of the Constitution and Provisions of the act arise in all these cases, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) FOR the purpose of convenience, we are referring to the facts in brief by referring the ranking of the parties as petitioners and respondents.