G.L. VEDHAVATHY Vs. PURUSHOTHAMA A.D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 29th of Aug., 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41122/2012 setting aside the order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Complaint No. Sec 16. NYAPRAGP 2012 by 5th respondent and declaring that the 1st respondent in writ petition - appellant herein has suffered a disqualification in terms of the provisions of Sec. 12(h) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993(for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The 1st respondent herein, who is the petitioner in W.P. No. 41122/2012 filed the writ petition seeking to quash Annexure -L dated 29.9.2012 passed by the 5th respondent -Authority and to hold that the same is illegal, against the law and without application of mind and also for a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the appellant herein - Member and President of Seethakal Grama Panchayat not to continue and hold the office of Member and also as the President of the said Seethakal Grama Panchayat, Tumkur Taluk since she has suffered the disqualification under Sec. 12(h) of the Act, contending that the petitioner, who is a Member of the 2nd respondent -Grama Panchayat and he has taken keen interest in alibis activities, meeting and other works that are being undertaken by the Panchayat and is also interested in setting right any illegality or irregularity that has been done either by any officers or members of the Grama Panchayat or any person connected with the administration of the Grama Panchayat.

(3.) The petitioner further contended that the 1st respondent therein -present appellant herein was elected as Member of the 2nd respondent -Grama Panchayath and consequently, she was elected as President of the 2nd respondent -Grama Panchayat from 24.6.2012. The 1st respondent/appellant herein is working against the interest of the Grama Panchayat -2nd respondent and she is in the habit of not giving importance for the procedure, rules, regulations, laws, etc., which are paramount in the administration of the Panchayat and because of her mal -administration, the people of the Grama Panchayat are suffering. It is also further contended that the 1st respondent -appellant herein, who is the member of the Grama Panchayat is directly involved in the contract work that has been sanctioned/undertaken and benefited by the execution of work within the Grama Panchayat area and therefore, she has suffered disqualification under the provisions of Sec. 12(2) of the Act.