M NAGAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought for a declaration that respondent-3 should be declared to have ceased to hold office having regard to the fact that he resigned his office as evidenced by Annexure-A dated 18-3-1987 and that being communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga district after lapse of 15 days the resignation became effective by operation of law having regard to the language of Section 41 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983. THEir further complaint is that even after the resignation the member in question, namely, the third respondent, has continued in office and even got elected as Pradhan of that Mandal.

(2.) THE only way the election of a Pradhan can be questioned under law is in accordance with the Rules made under the Act, viz., the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhan and Upapradhan) Rules, 1987. So, unless an election petition is presented as provided for under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules, within seven days of the declaration of the result, it cannot be indirectly questioned in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether resignation is in accordance with the provisions of Section 41 of the Act or not is a question of fact which requires to be examined. Even as evidenced by Annexure-E, an endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, it is evident that the resignation at Annexure-A was not in the handwriting of the member resigning and therefore the same was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Unless the person comes forward to press his resignation this Court will not investigate that matter further at the instance of others who are not concerned with the resignation. Subject to the above observation this petition is dismissed.