SURENDRAIAH H M Vs. PRESIDENT ZILLA PARISHAD TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is similar to Writ Petitions 15581 and 15582 of 1987. The petitioner is a member of Jogihalli Mandal Panchayat. He was one of the contesting candidate for the office of Pradhan, but not successful. He has challenged in this writ petition the election of second respondent Ramegowda as Pradhan and of Sri Eswaraiah-third respondent as Upapradhan. The petitioner also questions the nomination of respondent 4 and 5 as members of the Mandal Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983. Nomination of respondents 4 and 5 is challenged on the ground that Zilla Parishad Adhyaksha had no power to make nomination and therefore the nominations being invalid their participation at the election affecting the result of the election held for the office of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan is also vitiated.

(2.) In the election held by the sixth respondent for the office of Pradhan the second respondent obtained 16 votes including those of the nominated members while the other candidate petitioner obtained fourteen votes, as a result of which, the second respondent was declared elected. If the votes of the nominated members are not to be reckoned on account of the illegality of the nominations, as held by this Court in Writ Appeals 1942 of 1987 and connected matters, then they would have secured equal number of votes, which is to be resolved by the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhana and Upapradhana) Rules, 1987, i.e., by taking lot. Therefore, declaration of second respondent as Pradhana is liable to be struck down in Annexure-B by the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is directed to make a fresh declaration by resorting to lot.

(3.) The above direction is issued despite the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent. He contended that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of laches and no relief should be granted to the petitioner. He also contended that Section 55 of the Act saves the election of Pradhana notwithstanding the fact respondents 4 and 5 participated in the election. The thrust of the argument is that Section 55 being a provision intended to validate the acts of Mandal Panchayat despite defect in election or appointment of members, the election of the Pradhana must be considered and construed as an act of Mandal Panchayat and therefore, deemed to have been saved by Section 55 of the Act.