BANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are all residents of village Chillargi, Nandagaon, Janawada Ashtoor and "Chitta in Bidar District. They are aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga made on 28th day of February 1986 setting aside the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) By the said notification Deputy Commissioner had constituted Chillargi Mandal with Head Quarters at Chillargi consisting of Nandagaon, Mirzapur, Kaplapur, Amalpad, Jampad, Almaspur, Rasoolabad, Chillargi, Ashtoor, Imamabad and Malagao. Villagers of Malagaon, Kaplapur and Ashtoor preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner under Sub-Section (3) of Sec. 4 of the Act In disposing of the said revision petition, the Divisional Commissioner came to the conclusion that Chillargi was too far removed from the other villages in the Mandal as disclosed by P.W.D. map and the records. He had also called for the Deputy Commissioner's remarks on the revision petition. Those remarks indicated that Chillargi had been chosen as head quarters having regard to its population which is the highest in the Mandal as per 1971 census and also because it had the primary health centre. Having regard to its remote situation from most of the villages in the Mandal, the Divisional Commissioner hes preferred Malagaon which evidently has lesser population compared to the other village for locating headquarters, having regard to its central situation. That cannot be said to be either non-application of mind or arbitrary exercise of power.

(3.) Petitioners prayer to quash subSection (3) of Sec. 4 as conferring arbitrary power on the Divisional Commissioner is not well founded on any legal principle. The revisional power has specified meaning and scope judicially explained in more than one decision. He is empowered to afford an opportunity of being heard to the concerned persons before he disposes of a revision application before him or even when he exercises the power suo-moto. The challenge to the Constitutional validity of the sub-section is therefore totally misconceived.