SHIVAMMA Vs. A B SHIVANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law referred to the Full Bench for opinion is: "Whether the expression required number" occurring in sub- sec. (5) of S. 5 of the Act, has reference to the number fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-sec. (1) or to number eleven referred to in sub-sec. (6) of that Section?" To enable us to decide the question of law it is necessary to refer to a few facts of the case. Under S. 5(1) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, determined that the Village Panchayat of Harve shall consist of 13 members. Of these, nine were general seats, while two seats each under sub-sec. (2) of S. 5 of the Act read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Mysore Village Panchayat Rules, were reserved for women and Scheduled Castes. At the elections held in March 1968, nominations were filed for the 9 general seats and one seat reserved for women. Ten candidates were duly elected in the said elections. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, under sub-sec. (5) of S. 5 of the Act, appointed the first petitioner in the writ petition for the remaining reserved seat for women, and the other 2 petitioneds for the 2 seats which were reserved for the representatives of the Scheduled Castes, thus bringing the total number of members to 13. The first respondent filed an appeal against the said order of nomination of the three petitioners, and the Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeal following the decision of this Court in D. Kemparaja Urs v. Bommegowda, (1962) Mys.L.J. 141and Guruswamy Setty v. State of Mysore, (1969) 1 Mys.LJ. 69.. These two decisions have laid down that sub-sec. (5) is controlled by sub-sec. (6) of S. 5 of the Act and that the expression 'required number' occurring in sub-sec. (5) has reference to the number 'eleven' referred to in sub-sec. (6), and that the Deputy Commissioner can appoint only such number of members as will bring the total to eleven.

(2.) The petitioners challenged the said order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, in WP. 918 of 1969. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before Tukol and Honniah, JJ., their Lordships were of opinion that sub-sec. (6) does not control sub-sec. (5), and that the harmonious interpretation of the entire section requires a reading of the two sub-sections independently of one another. The view expressed by the tv/o decisions of this Court not only abridges the power of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-sec. (5), but also abridges the ambit of sub-sec. (1) leading in a case like the present, to a denial of the right of representation to reserved classes under sub-sec. (2). Their Lordships were also of the opinion that sub-sec. (6) lays down a general proposition as regards the constitution of a valid Panchayat. Since sub-sec. (6) of that section does not control any of the other sub-sections, their Lordships thought, the two decisions of this Court referred to above, required reconsideration by a larger Bench, and accordingly referred the question of law to a Full Bench.

(3.) The relevant provisions of S. 5 of the Act, read as follows: