PRAVEEN KUNDER Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Panchayat Development Officer, 12th Heggunje Grama Panchayat, Udupi Taluk and District - 2nd respondent, had submitted a complaint dated 18.12.2012 to the 1st respondent, requesting to take action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was continuously absent for four meetings of the Panchayat held on 01.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 02.11.2012 and 04.12.2012. Acting on the said complaint, the 1st respondent having issued notice to the petitioner for appearance and enquiry and the petitioner having filed statement of objections dated 01.06.2013, after holding an enquiry, the 1st respondent having passed an order dated 22.11.2013, as at Annexure-A, declaring that the seat held by the petitioner be deemed to have fallen vacant, this writ petition was filed to quash Annexure-A. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned advocate, contended that due to ill health, the petitioner did not attend the meeting held from 01.09.2012. He submitted that the meeting notice dated 25.08.2012 shows 01.09.2012 to be Wednesday, though 01.09.2012 was a Saturday. He submitted that the petitioner suffered from jaundice and took treatment under 'Nati Vydyaru.' He further submitted that, despite the admission of the mistake by the 2nd respondent with regard to the meeting notice dated 25.08.2012 showing Wednesday instead of Saturday i.e., 01.09.2012, the order passed being arbitrary and illegal interference is called for.

(2.) Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned advocate for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner having absented himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat, without the grant of leave by the Grama Panchayat, a complaint dated 18.12.2012 having been submitted by the 2nd respondent, after issue of notice to the petitioner and after holding of enquiry by following principle of natural justice, the order as at Annexure-A has been passed and hence, no interference with the finding of fact recorded therein, which having not been shown to be either perverse or illegal, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is impermissible i.e., by applying the well settled principles of law in catena of decisions of the Apex Court.

(3.) Perused the writ record. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocates on both sides, the question that arises for my determination is, whether the order, as at Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent suffers from any legal infirmity, calling for interference?