T BHAGYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has sought for quashing the order of respondent 2-Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, dated september 29, 1997 made in exercise of power under sub-section (4) of Section 48 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') removing the petitioner from the office of Adhyaksha of Madanayakanahally Grama panchayat in Bangalore North Taluk. Annexure-E is the order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are: petitioner-Smt. T. Bhagyalakshmi, it is stated was elected as member to Laxmipura Village Panchayat in the election held on december 29, 1993 and later called as Madanayakanahalli village Panchayat. Further, in the election held on March 12, 1994 for the office of Adhyaksha to the said panchayat, petitioner was elected. It would appear that petitioner during the course of one to one and a half years while functioning as adhyaksha of the panchayat issued 18 general licences and 10 licences under her signature though in fact law did not permit the Adhyaksha to issue such licences. Only 4 out of 18 and one out of 10 had the approval of the panchayat and in the case of other licences Adhyaksha had not brought the subject before the panchayat.

(3.) IT would appear that on a complaint by one Sri Seenappa from Madanayakanahalli village and a member of the Zilla panchayat, Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat instructed the Deputy Secretary to enquire into the matter. Deputy Secretary visited the panchayat office on April 17, 1996, examined the records and submitted his report to the Chief executive Officer complaining that 4 out of 18 general licences and one out of 10 licences had been issued by the Adhyaksha without the approval of the panchayat. Chief Executive Officer, therefore, on April, 30, 1996 issued notices calling for explanation. Petitioner on July 2, 1996 submitted her reply contending inter alia that not knowing the law or the procedure, being an uneducated lady and coming from a backward community has issued licences, but at any rate those licences have been issued after recommendation by the Secretary and has also sought for excuse. The Chief Executive Officer, on July 27, 1996 reported the matter to respondent 2-Divisional commissioner proposing action under Section 48 (4) of the Act. On receipt of the recommendation respondent 2 caused notice dated November 4, 1996 served on the petitioner, Annexure-C is the said notice calling for explanation. Petitioner in reply submitted in writing on November 18, 1996 reiterating what she had stated earlier and also assuring that she would not give scope for such lapses or irregularity in future. Respondent 2 posted the case for hearing and by the order impugned dated september, 1997 directed the removal of the petitioner from the office of Adhyaksha, but however continued her as the member of the Grama Panchayat. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.