RAMAPPA Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue rule. This petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Counsel for respondent-1 on the ground that the petitioner having not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him by filing an election petition under the provisions of Section 14 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act'), this petition is not maintainable. Ordinarily if a question of fact is disputed before this Court, this Court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the matter can be properly adjudicated in an election petition under the provisions of the Act. But a Division Bench of this Court in a similar matter in Siddappa Yellappa v. Election Officer [1980(1) Kar L.J 149] (to which I was a party) has taken the view after considering the ruling of the Supreme Court in Nanhoo Mai v. Tira Mal (A I.R. 1975 SC 2140) that there is no absolute bar for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 in certain extraordinary circumstances after the election process is completed. This Court has further held that if the illegality or otherwise does not require any investigation, driving the appellant to an election tribunal under Section 13 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act would be an empty formality and it would be the most appropriate case for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to correct such obvious error and to prevent failure of justice. On the same analogy when the facts relating to the disqualification of respondent-1 are not in dispute as are evident in the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1981 disposed of on 9-8-1982, there is no bar for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. This Court had convicted respondent-1 for an offence punishable under Section 448 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days ; for an offence under Section 354 IPC. it sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S I. for a period of 15 days; and for an offence under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for a period of one month.

(3.) The only point for consideration is whether the sentence imposed on respondent-1 by this Court under the aforesaid offences under the Indian Penal Code would attract the disqualification as prescribed under Section 11 (1)(c) of the Act. On these admitted facts it is a matter for interpretation of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act and the meaning to be given to the words "sentenced by a criminal court to imprisonment for an offence which involves moral turpitude". Under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act - a person shall be disqualified for being chosen or nominated and for being a member of a Mandal Panchayat :-