M R PUNDARKAKSHAPPA Vs. MOLAKALMURU TALUK DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are heard together as the questions raised in the two proceedings are identical.

(2.) The petitioner in each of these petitions is a member of the Taluk Development Board of Molakalmuru and Chitradurga respectively. In each of these the third respondent is a member of the Mysore Legislative Assembly; one from Molakalmuru Constituency and the other from Chitradurga Constituency. In connection with the election of President and Vice President to the Taluk Development Boards, notices have been served on the third respondent in each of these cases. The petitioner complains that under Section 96 (2) of the Mysore Village Pancha-yats and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Taluk Development Board of Challakere and Molakalmuru in one case and Chitradurga Hiriyur in another case have sent notices to the third respondent to participate in the first meeting and in the election of President and Vice President of the Taluk Development Boards. The petitioners contention is that the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Act are discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that even if the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Act are valid, the third respondent can take part in the proceedings of one of the Taluk Development Boards, i.e., either in Molakalmuru Taluk Development Board or Challakere in one case and Hiriyur or Chitradurga Taluk Development Board in the other. The third respondent cannot take part in both the Taluk Boards. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ striking down the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Act and also seeking other consequential reliefs.

(3.) Sri Doddakalegowda appears for the petitioner in W. P. 4595/68 and Sri B. V. Krishnaswamy Rao appears for the petitioner in W. P. 132/69. The first contention of the learned counsel Sri Doddakalegowda is that Section 96 (2) of the Act is discriminatory as it makes a distinction between a member of the Legislative Assembly and a Member of the Legislative Council both of whom are Legislators. This legal provision hence should be struck down. Section 96 (2) of the Act is in the following terms: