IRAGANTEPPA AILAS VEERAGANTAPPA Vs. HANUMANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits. An interesting point of law has been canvassed in this Writ Appeal and it concerns the interpretation of Section 43-A of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj act, 1993. The allegation against the present appellant who was elected to the Panchayat from a reserved seat is that he had contested in the election on the representation that he belongs to simpi Caste but the Respondent No. 1 has brought it to the notice of the authorities at different levels that the appellant is a Lingayat, that there is documentary evidence in relation to his school certificate to this effect and that he has made a positively false statement to the Caste Verification Committee and obtained a caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to the Simpi caste with the sole purpose of contesting on a reserved seat. The respondent No. 1 complainant had further pointed out that apart from wrongfully getting elected through such misrepresentation that the appellant was also elected as the Adhyaksha and that having regard to the fact that the fraud practiced by him on the Caste Verification Committee is something of extreme seriousness, the respondent No. 1 contended that the appellant should be disqualified and removed from office by the government invoking the powers under Section 43-A of the Act. According to the respondent No. 1 the powers are delegated to the deputy Commissioner and despite his complaint the Deputy commissioner did not take any action and that was why he filed the writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the authorities to act under the provisions of Section 43-A of the act. The appellant has denied the correctness of the allegations and the has put forward certain explanations inter-alia to the effect that it is because of personal and political enmity that the respondent no. 1 has complained against him etc, but we are not really concerned with the merits of the charges. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the petitioner to submit a complaint to the Government to take necessary steps as contemplated under Section 43-A of the act against respondent-4 if the allegations made in the complaint are established. Consequential directions were issued to the authorities to act on the complaint on time bound basis, it is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) THE appellant s learned Counsel has advanced the submission that the ambit and scope of Section 43-A of the Act is restricted to different categories of acts that would in fact disqualify, and even removal from office provided these acts have been committed during the tenure of office of the candidate in question. In other words, what he submits is that Section 43-A will take cognizance only of post-electoral misdemeanors and that this Section would have no application in relation to allegations of charges that pertain to an earlier point of time before the candidate has assumed the elected office. In support of his submission, the appellant s learned Advocate has relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in parappa vs NANDARAYAPPA and OTHERS1 wherein the Division bench while interpreting some of the similar provisions under the karnataka Agricultural produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1966 recorded the finding that the scope of the Section and in particular, the jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and to take action under this provision of the law is confined to situations that have arisen during the tenure of office. The submission canvassed therefore is that section 43-A could have no application to the present charges and that consequentially the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE learned Govt. Advocate who is virtually an independent counsel in this tussle has submitted that Section 43-A has been specially promulgated in order to enable the Government to disqualify and even remove from office persons who indulge in various forms of misbehaviour during their tenure of office and he has pointed out to the Court that there are different provisions of law for purposes of dealing with allegations that pertain to a period of time or to acts or activities which do not come within this limited area. His submission is that the authorities and the Government cannot be directed to act under Section 43-A as far as the present charges are concerned.