MARUTI PARASHRAM KUGAJI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 1 to 19, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notices vide annexures-D1 to D13, issued by the 2nd respondent dated 3-3-2006, bearing even No. Sain:gra:a:pa:27:jipasa:2006 and declare and quash the said notices as totally devoid of bona fides, the authority of law and as arbitrary and capricious, have presented this writ petition. Further, the petitioners have sought for a direction calling upon the 1st respondent to enquire into and take the required remedial action against the 3rd respondent for the usurpation and assumption of the powers of the Government that the 3rd respondent has resorted to in issuing the impugned notices dated 3-3-2006 mentioned above, and ensure the rule of law adumbrated in article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE only grievance made out by the petitioners in this writ petition is that, all these petitioners are duly elected members of the 4th respondent-Taluk Panchayat. The first meeting of the said taluk Panchayat, after general elections to the said local authority was held in the month of december 2005 had been scheduled to be held on 27th February, 2006. Accordingly, notice has been issued on 15-2-2006 vide Annexure-A, fixing the date of newly elected members of the taluk Panchayat-4th respondent. When things stood thus, it is shock and surprise to these petitioners, when they have received the notices vide Annexures-D1 to D18 issued by the 2nd respondent without jurisdiction and he is not a Competent Authority to issue such notices under section 136 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The said notices issued by the 2nd respondent is one without jurisdiction and the same is null and void. Therefore, petitioners are constrained to approach this Court, by assailing the correctness of the impugned notices vide annexures-D1 to D18 and seeking further directions as referred above.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that, 2nd respondent herein by invoking Section 136 of the Panchayat Raj, Act, assuming the power, has issued the impugned notices dated 3-3-2006 vide Annexures-D1 to D18 and the same are one without jurisdiction. Immediately after the receipt of the notices to be on safer side, these petitioners have filed their detailed reply and the reply filed by one of the petitioners i. e. , petitioner 10 is at annexure-C, specifically pointing out that, the said notice is issued without any authority of law, against Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have reserved their liberty to question the same in appropriate proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, it is well-settled principles of law laid down by this Court and Apex Court that, if any notice is issued without jurisdiction is nullity in the eye of law and the parties are entitled to assail the same by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned notices issued by the 2nd respondent are one without jurisdiction and they are liable to be set aside.