N M AMARANATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein, assailing the decision of the Administrator, Taluk Panchayat, mulbagal, dated 13th September, 2005 regarding preparation of annual plan for the year 2005-06 for implementation of the Rural Rozgar Scheme vide Annexures-D and E, have presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONERS herein claim to be former elected members of the Taluk Panchayat, Mulbagal-third respondent herein, which is a statutory body, performing its functions under Schedule II of the karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The petitioners herein and other elected members of the taluk Panchayat, during their previous term, had prepared an annual plan in respect of Rural rozgar Scheme for the year 2005-06 pertaining to the execution of various works for the benefit of people living in rural areas along with the list of works relating to formation of public roads, drainage, culverts, maintenance and construction of schools and maintenance of minor irrigation works and promotion of programmes relating to welfare of woman in the rural area and maintenance of community assets in the rural areas. The same were discussed threadbare in the meeting held on 20th May, 2005 and accordingly, they have passed the resolution approving the list of works for the annual plan unanimously subject to approval of the same by the Zilla panchayat, Be that as it may. The then Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat, Mulbagal, and other members had given a representation dated 23rd September, 2005 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, Kolar, stating that the infirmities pointed out by the Zilla Panchayat may be directed to be rectified and resubmitted by the Administrator for approval. Ignoring the said representation, the Administrator of the Taluk Panchayat, Mulbagal has prepared a new list of works for the annual plan for execution of the works in the rural areas, contrary to the direction issued by the Zilla Panchayat. The Zilla Panchayat, earlier, after analysing the annual plan, had pointed out certain deficiencies/infirmities in the same and directed the Taluk Panchayat to rectify the defects pointed out and resubmit the same. But, the Administrator of the Taluk panchayat-third respondent herein, instead of rectifying the defects pointed out by the Zilla panchayat in the annual plan and the list of works, which were unanimously approved in the general meeting held on 20th May, 2005 by the elected body of the Taluk Panchayat and resubrnitting the same to the Zilla Panchayat, much contrary to the decision taken earlier, has requested the Zilla Panchayat to approve the alleged resolution passed by the Administrator of the third respondent-Taluk Panchayat. It is the case of petitioners that, the Administrator has no authority to change the annual plan prepared by the previous elected body or change the programmes already initiated. The Administrator is duty bound to continue the unanimous decision taken by the previous elected body in their general meeting held on 20th May, 2005. Therefore, action of the Administrator in preparing a new Annual Plan for the year 2005-06 for implementation of the Rural Rozgar Scheme contrary to the directions issued by the Zilla panchayat, Kolar is without authority of law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, assailing the correctness of the alleged resolution passed by the Administrator, referred above.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent 1. The Zilla Panchayat-second respondent is served and unrepresented. When this matter had come up for preliminary hearing on 11th October, 2005, this Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate, had granted the stay order, stating the impugned proceedings vide Annexure-D, only with regard to release of Rs. 20 lakhs in favour of the contractors without prior sanction of the second respondent. Further, this Court observed that, the second respondent is required to examine for granting sanction of the resolution passed by the third respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Inspite of passing the interim order and its due communication to second respondent, the second respondent has not engaged the services of a Counsel nor any of its representatives was present when the matter is taken up. Therefore, the second respondent is served and unrepresented.