EKANATH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat is the petitioner in this writ petition and he challenges a move for expressing no confidence in him initiated admittedly by 12 of the 29 members of the Mandal Panchayat. The no confidence motion in question had actually been moved at the meeting held for that purpose on 27-12-1991 and it was also declared to have been carried successfully as could be seen from the proceedings of the panchayat under Annexure-F. It has to be noticed the Assistant Commissioner of Gulbarga had chaired the same. The concluding portion of Annexure-F states that the petitioner was unseated by a majority of the votes cast against his continuance and, therefore, he ordered the cancellation of the continuation of the petitioner as Pradhan. Subsequently the Tahsildar notified the vacancy caused by the removal of petitioner from the office of Pradhan and fixed the 24th January, 1992 as the date on which the poll would be held if necessary to fill up the vacancy of Pradhan of Dharwad Mandal Panchayat. That notification is produced at Annexure-H.

(2.) In the context of that notification this Court passed an interim order directing the with holding of the results of that poll pending disposal of that writ petition. I am told and there is no dispute about it, respondent No. 4, Basavaraj who got himself impleaded as a party respondent in this writ petition was the sole nominee for the office of the Pradhan and in the usual course should have been declared elected as unopposed but that declaration has been stayed by this Court. He very eagerly awaits the declaration of that result. Therefore, it is, I propose to dispose off this petition finally on merits although it appears today in the list of order cases.

(3.) I have heard both sides fully.Issue Rule.