CHENNA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter had been taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned R. 3 counsel on both sides on 22 2-1990. The matter was heard in part and again it was called on 26-2-1990. On that date the matter was heard further and was reserved for pronouncement of orders today. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner now submitted that he has some more submissions to make in the matter. He was accordingly permitted to do so and the matter was heard further.

(2.) The petitioner contested the election to the Mandal Panchayat of Thappanahal'y from Chamanahally constituency and was elected as a member of the said mandal panchayat. The petitioner is working as an Accountant in Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), Kolar Gold Field. After his election to the mandal panchayat the petitioner did not resign from the post of Accountant in BEML, but continued to be a member of the mandal panchayat and also as an Accountant in BEML. The second it-spondent in the writ petition brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 1, u/s. 12 (2) of the Kama taka Zilla Parishads. Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the fact of petitioner continuing himself in the dual role and sought for a declaration that he was not qualified to continue as a member of the Thoppanahally Mandal Panchayat. The first respondent enquired into the matter and following a decision of this Court in S.R. Rangtppa v Girijakumar & Others (1987 (2) Bangalore Law Journal 330) held that the post of accountant in BEML is an office of profit for the purposes of Section 11(1)(J) of the Act and therefore the petitioner could not continue as a member of the said mandal panchayat. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Two contentions are urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly that u/s 12(2) of the Act the Deputy Commissioner could declare a person as having incurred the disqualification referred to u/s 12(1) of the Act either suo motu or on a report made to him and inasmuch as in the present case no report had been made to the Deputy Commissioner by any authority of the said panchayat nor had he acted suo motu, the Deputy Commissioner was wrong in exercising power u/s 12(2) of the Act and making a declaration that the petitioner had incurred the disqualification u/s 12(1) of the Act. It was secondly contended that the petitioner does not hold an office of profit as contemplated u/s. 11(1)(j) of the Act.