S M VENKATARAMANAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by the Chairman of the Suggondanahally Village Group Panchayat in Malur Taluk of Kolar Dist. He has challenged the legali andi correctness of the notfin. issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, who is the 2nd respondent herein. That notification is dated 23.6.1983 and it is a notification issued in purported exercise of his power under S. 8 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats & Local Boards Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . What occasioned the 2nd respondent to exercise that power was the fact that the first respondent State of Karnataka in its Notifin. No. RDC 8 VEL 83 Part III dt.16.5.1983 had postponed the date of poll in respect of the Village Panchayats whose term was due to expire during the months of May, June, July and August 1983, for a period of six months or till .the elections were held, whichever was earlier. In exercise of that power under S. 8 of the Act, an Administrator has been appointed to the Suggondanahally Village Group Panchayat, the term of office of the members of which will come to an end on 27.7.1983, The period for which the Administrator is appointed is for a period of six months with effect from the dates specified in the schedule to the notification or till the elections to the village panchayat are held, whichever is earlier.

(2.) The grounds of attack are two fold, Sri. S.K Venkataranga lyengar, pointed out that there is no power under S. 8 of the Act available to the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an Administrator until the term of the members of the panchayat actualily expires. Elaborating his contention he submitted that the power to appoint an Administrator accrues to the Deputy Commissioner only after the expiry of the term actually and before such expiry of the term, the Deputy Commissioner cannot in anticipation make an order appointing the Administrator because no election can possibly be held before the expiry of that date, whether such conclusion is reached by him by virtue of the notification of the Government Or an account of other facts. Secondly, he has contended that the term of office of the Chairman of the panchayat has been fixed by Ss.28 and 29 of the Act. S. 29 of the Act provides for the Chairman to discharge his duties till his successor is elected and therefore, there is no scope for the appointment of an Administrator under S. 8 of the Act. If elections are postponed, it is the argument, then the chairman shall continue, to hold the office till the electioss are held and his successor is elected.

(3.) I am unable to accede to both the contentions on a careful examination of the relevant provisions. My reasons are as follows: - S. 8 of the Act reads as follows:-