B LINGARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs :-

(2.) However, Sri Gunja!, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted during the course of arguments that the relief as to the validity of Section 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishad, Taluk Panchayat Samithi, Mandal Panchayat, Nyaya Panchayat Act, 1883 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') may be treated as given up. In view of this submission, is not necessary to consider the validity of Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) The contention of Sri Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, has exercised the power under Section 4(3) of the Act arbitrarily and the manner of exercise is opposed to law. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 submits that the exercise of power by the Divisional Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity and it is not a matter in which interference is called for having regard to a Division Bench decision of this court in Bhadre Gowda v State of Karnataka (I.L.R. 1986 Karnataka, page 2676).