CHANDRAPPA Vs. DIVL COMMR GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts and circumstances of the petition are slightly unusual. Respondent 4 had been elected as Chairman of the Village Panchayat, Ankasoddi, and he was functioning as the Chairman of the said Panchayat until he was removed by an order passed by the Asst. Commr., Lingasugur, on 8-5-1972. Against the said order Respt.4 preferred an appeal before the Divl. Commr., Gulbarga. The Divl. Commr., Gulbarga, by his order dt.21-1-1974 set aside the order of the Asst, Commr and directed that Respt.4 should continue as the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. During the pendency of the appeal before the Divl Commr , the Village Panchayat elected the petitioner as the Chairman After the order of the Divl Commr. was passed, the petitioner has been asked to hand over change to Respt.4 by the Chief Executive Officer, TDB , Lmgasugur, Respt 3 herein. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition Sri Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner who had been validly ejected as the Chairman of the Village Panchayat could be removed from that office only in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act. He argued that in the absence of an election petition or any other proceedings under the said Act taken against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be declared as having ceased to be the Chairman of the Village Panchayat, In qther words, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that notwithstanding then fact that the appeal of Respt.4 has been allowed by the Divl Commr. Respt 4 cannot be permitted to function as the Chairman again in view of the election of the petitioner to the office of the Chairman of the Village Panchayat during the pendency of the appeal.

(2.) It is no doubt true that there is no express provision in the statute to deal with a situation like the present one But it appeals to me that the acceptance of the argument urged on behalf of the petitioner instead of advancing justice would perpetuate injustice The Divl. Commr. who allowed the appeal has found the Order of removal passed against Respt.4 who, had been duly elected as Chairman was unsustainable In view of the said order, it has to bs assumed that there was no vacancy at all in the office of the Chairman of the Village Panchayat. In the absence of a vacancy, no other person can be elected to fill that post. That petitioner functioned as Chairman of the Village Panchayat until the order of the Divl Commr was passed, cannot have the effect of taking away the right of Respt.4 to function as the Chairman during the remaining period allowed by law. I am of the opinion that in this case the Court should uphold the right of Respt 4 to function as Chairman instead of allowing the petitioner to continue as Chairman after the order of the Divl. Commr. is passed I do not think that this is a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The petition, therefore, fails and it is dismissed without notice to respondents.