S R RANGAPPA Vs. GIRIJAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this writ appeal arc set out as follows:- 1) the appellant was elected as a member of hatcholli mandal panchayal in sirguppa taluk, bellary district. He was also the chairman of the sirguppa agricultural marketing committee. Rcspondcnts-1 and 2 gave a representation to the 4th respondent (deputy commissioner, bellary dist., bellary) to dismember the appellant under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983, (for short the 'act') on the ground that he is disqualified to be member as per Section 11(1)(j) of the Act, inasmuch as he holds an office of profit being the chairman of the sirguppa agricultural market committee. The 4th respondent issued a notice Annexure-C dated 2-6-1987 to the appellant asking him as to why he should not be dismembered from the said mandal panchayat stating that he was holding an office of profit and was disqualified to become member of the mandal panehayat as per Section 11 (1)(j) of the act. The 4th respondent after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order anncxure-d dated 6-7-1987, holding that the appellant was disqualified under Section 11(1)(j) of the act from the membership of hatcholli mandal panchayat. The appellant filed writ petition No. 10505/1987 praying to issue a writ of ccrtiorari and quash the impugned Order, annexurc-d dated 6-7-1987, passed by the 4lh respondent. The learned single judge by his order dated 8-9-1987 dismissed the writ petition upholding the impugned order anncxurc-d passed by the 4lh respondent.

(2.) the appellant aggrieved by the said order of the learned single judge as well as the order annexurc-d passed by the 4th respondent has filed the present appeal.

(3.) on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant is disqualified to be member of the mandal panchayat under Section 11(1)(j) of the act as he was holding office of the chairman, agricultural market produce committee and was receiving honorarium of Rs. 250/- per month which is in the nature of remuneration other than compensatory allowance for this purpose. They relied on Section 11 (1)(j) of act and the Karnataka zilla parishads and mandal panchayats (prevention of disqualification) rules, 1986 (for short 'rules, 1986'). The learned single judge and the 4th respondent accepted the contention of the respondents and held that the appellant was holding an office of profit under local authority as chairman of the sirguppa agricultural market committee and the honorarium he was receiving was not a compensatory allowance but a remuneration. As such the consequent conclusion was the appellant was disqualified to be a member of the said mandal panchayat.