STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MAHADEVAPPA MALLAPPA HATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ appeals can be dealwith under a common judgment, as they raise a common question of law as to the scope of interpretation of Section 135(3) of the Karnataka Jilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Manda! Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act'). The writ petitions out of which these appeals arise question the validity of the circular dated 1 9th December, 1 989 bearing No. GRAHAPA : . 6 THAPASA 89, issued by the Director, Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj.

(2.) The risk and substance of suchcircular is. that by reason of the general elections held in the State, the members of the Legislative Assembly who have been newly elected shall be entitled to be the Chairman of the Taluka Panchayath Samithies and those elected shall have to vacate the office except during the non-availability of all those members of the assembly. The writ petitioners stated that during the President's regime the assembly having been dissolved, there was no member of the Legislative Assembly. Conse quently, during the absence of such a member, the Taluka Panchayath Sami this had elected them as Chairman and this were entitled to continue for their full term as Chairman. They cannot be deprived of the Chairmanship by reason of the impugned circular. Further, the earlier circular dated 26th July, 1938 cannot be nullified. According to them, once the election had taken place for whatever reason it may be, the democrotic process of such an election cannot be set at naught purporting to give effect to the statutory provision of Section 135(3) of the Act in this banner, calling upon them to demit the office. Therefore virtually what was argued was about the scope of Section 135(3) of the Act.

(3.) In opposition to this, it wasargued on behalf of the State that, what Section 135(3) contemplates is this: (i) The M.L.A. shall be the Chair man, if available; and (ii) Only in the absence of M.L.A. or the non-availability of M.L.A., the Taluka Panchayath Samnithi could elect the Chairman from among its members. Where therefore, when the M.L.A. is available, it is no longer possible for the elected Chairman to contend that r.ecould continue for all time to come disregardful of statutory intenment. Thus, what came up for interpretation was Section 135(3) of the Act.