SAVITHRAMMA Vs. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 18/1/2020 passed by the 5th Respondent whereby their elected tenure in the 1st Respondent - Grama Panchayath has been cut short. As a legal consequence, they would be disqualified from contesting in the future elections for a specified period.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that his clients had offered plausible explanations for their absence in the meetings of the Grama Panchayat; the 5th Respondent being the competent authority, ought to have considered the same and condoned the lapse; instead, the authority proceeded on a wrong interpretation of Sec. 43A(1)(iii) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 and thereby declined to consider the explanation; this is unjustifiable. He adds that, there is misdirection in law on the part of said authority and that would constitute an error apparent on the face of the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.

(3.) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat opposes the Petition contending that the text of Sec. 43A(1)(iii) of the 1993 Act being as clear as Gangetic Waters, does not admit any interpretation other than literal; the competent authority this is none other than the State Government has rightly passed the impugned order after ascertaining absence of the Petitioners in four consecutive meetings of the Grama Panchayat; even the explanation offered by some of them is not shown to be true and plausible; therefore, this Court should loath to interfere.