LAWS(KAR)-1994-7-35

K PUTTASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 22, 1994
K.PUTTASWAMY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by this petition the petitioner has sought for relief of issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 8-6-1994 annexure-a to the writ petition issued by the prescribed authority, calling the meeting of gram panchayat on 17-6-1994 for electing the adhyaksha and upadyaksha of mayaganahalli gram panchayat, ramanagaram taluk, bangalore rural district. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to follow the newly promulgated government Order as per notification annexure-d, dated 20-4-1994 and to accept the proposal of the petitioner to contest as backward community member by declaring that new government Order will be applicable to the proposed election. He has further prayed for a direction to respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh calendar of events and to hold the elections in accordance with law afresh and .to grant such other relief as the court deems fit, including the cost of the petition.

(2.) the case of the petitioner as mentioned in the writ petitionis that petitioner belongs to vokkaliga caste which is one of the castes coming under backward classes community. According to the petitioner he is one of the elected members of the panchayat referred to above, i.e., mayaganahalli village panchayat and that he has been elected in the election held on 29-12-1993, but the date has been wrongly mentioned as 29-3-1993, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents and admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and they corrected the date of election subsequently to read as 29-12-1993. That after the election of the members of panchayat, on march 2nd, 1994, a notice was issued fixing the date of meeting of the panchayat as 15-3-1994, for the purpose of holding the election of adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of the aforesaid panchayat. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the notice which is in kannada. The contents of the notice and the matter thereof in substance as explained by learned counsel for both the parties admittedly are that, by that notice a meeting was called upon to be held on 15-3-1994 at 3 p.m. at the panchayat office. That is the date and time of holding election of the president and vice-president that was fixed. In paragraph two of the notice it has been mentioned that the proposal of the names of the candidates should be sent over to the prescribed authority by or before the noon of march 11,1994. It has further been provided therein that the nomination i.e., proposal of name can be presented either by the candidate himself or by proposer or seconder and only one person should be nominated. It may be mentioned here that the post of adhyaksha of this panchayat is reserved for the backward classes candidates and the post of vice-president or upadhyaksha has been reserved for scheduled caste lady candidates. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could not get his nomination or proposal of his name presented on or before 11-3-1994 that as according to his understanding he was not eligible to contest the election for that post on account of the fact that though the petitioner's family had less than six acres of land, but his annual income has been Rs. 10,000/- per annum and so the petitioner considered that his nomination may be rejected so his nomination could not be presented before or by 11-3-1994 before noon. That according to the petitioner's case due to some unsurmountable events and conditions in which the meeting could not be held on 15-3-1994 and no election of the adhyaksha and upadhyaksha could take place and the meeting was postponed indefinitely without recording whether the calender of events published already would be applicable to the candidates to the election in future, as well as without fixing any date for next meeting. The petitioner has further asserted that on june 8, 1994 the opposite party issued a notice for fixing the meeting to be held on 17-6-1994 at 11 a.m. for the purpose of holding the elections to the post of adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of the said panchayat. It has been specifically mentioned as per annexure-a that for holding the election of adhyaksha or upadhyaksha a notice was issued calling and fixing the meeting on 15-3-1994 and due to unavoidable reasons and circumstances, the election of adhyaksha and upadhyaksha meeting could not take place, therefore, the same had to be postponed and so under the chairmanship of the prescribed authority, the meeting was being convened on 17-6-1994 at 11 a.m. in the panchayat office requesting all the members to attend the meeting. During the period between 15-3-1994 and 8-6-1994 i.e., the date of issuance of annexure-a, a government Order bearing No. Swd/75/bca, bangalore, dated 20-4-1994 was issued and came into operation. In that Order the petitioner's caste is mentioned in category iii (backward) at s. No. L(a) vokkaliga. The petitioner has further submitted that in accordance with this government Order as the petitioner owns less than eight hectares of land, the petitioner is entitled to contest the election for the office of adhyaksha. There is no bar or restriction with reference to the annual income of Rs. 10,000/- or more. During the course of the hearing, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 15 only, stating that the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-3-1994 had started at 3 p.m. at the place mentioned in the notice. But as there was lot of disturbance in the meeting and the proceedings of the first meeting was adjourned at 4-50 a.m. due to unavoidable circumstances. It has been further stated that all 18 members of the panchayat were present and the deponent had signed the attendance register. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-3-1994 as annexure-r-1. The learned government pleader has placed before me the attendance register and says that it was signed by all the members. The presiding officer i.e. prescribed authority is alleged to have presided the meeting. No other counter affidavit has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri Havanur who has been assisted by Sri Ravivarma Kumar and Sri Hanumantharayappa on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri B.J. Somayaji, learned government pleader representing respondents 1 and 2. I have heard Sri M.E. Prabhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7 and Sri K. Shantharaj on behalf of respondent No. 15. I have gone through the record.