VEERAYYA SIDDARAMAYYA HASAVIMATH Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the writ petitioners. They sought the quashing of the nominations of respondents 3 and 4 as members of Balehosur Mandal Panchayat, as per notification dated 14-12-1987 published by the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the nominations made by the Zilla Parishad. The petitioners also sought for a declaration that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible to be nominated under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (referred as 'the Act').

(2.) The four petitioners are the elected members of the Mandal Panchayat. According to the petitioners 24 members were elected to the Mandal Panchayat, out of whom 13 belonged to Congress-I party and 11 belonged to Janatha Party, in the election held in January 1987. The Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishad, in the purported exercise of power entrusted to him by the Zilla Parishad, nominated two members as the members of the said Mandal Panchayat, under Section 5(3) of the Act. This nomination by the Adhyaksha of Zilla Parishad was set aside by this Court. In the meanwhile, the Calendar of Events announced to hold the election of Pradhana and Upa-pradhana on 21-4-1987 to the Mandal Panchayat had been stayed by this Court. The nominations made by the Adhyaksha of Zilla Parishad were set aside by this Court on 21-9-1987. Petitioners 1 and 2 had filed their nominations to contest for the office of Pradhana and Upa-pradhana respectively. On the disposal of the writ petition challenging the nominations made by the Adhyaksha of Zilla Parishad under Section 5(3) of the Act, the election to elect the Pradhana and Upa-pradhana had to be conducted. The Returning Officer issued notices to hold the election on 8-1-1988. In the meanwhile the Zilla Parishad met and nominated respondents 3 and 4 as members under Section 5(3) of the Act. Petitioners assert that the nominations were not called for, as the Mandal Panchayat had a few elected members who belong to the backward class. Petitioners also questioned the status of respondents 3 and 4 as not belonging to backward class as enumerated in the relevant Rules made under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The assertion of the petitioners that there are already elected members belonging to backward classes, is denied in the statement of objections filed by respondents 3 and 4. The other assertion that respondents 3 and 4 did not belong to the backward classes and thus ineligible for nomination is also denied. Both sets of parties have filed several documents in support of their respective contentions.