M H SOMASEKHARAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR BHADRAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN THIS PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10-1-1988/1-2-1988 PASSED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ZILLA PARISHAD, SHIMOGA, SUSPENDING THE SUPPLY OF FAIR PRICE COMMODITIES TO THE FAIR-PRICE SHOP OF THE PETITIONER. THE GROUND ON WHICH THE SUSPENSION OF (SUPPLY OF) FAIR-PRICE COMMODITIES IS ORDERED IS THAT THE PETITIONER WHO HOLDS AUTHORISATION TO DISTRIBUTE FAIR PRICE COMMODITIES TO THE CARDHOLDERS OF MYDOLALU VILLAGE IS DISQUALIFIED TO BOLD THE AUTHORISATION SINCE HE IS A MEMBER OF MYDOLALU MANDAL PANCHAYAT AS PER CLAUSE (K) OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE KARNATAKA ZILLA PARISHADS, TALUK PANCHAYAT SAMITHIES, MANDAL PANCHAYATS AND NYAYA PANCHAYATS ACT, 1985 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT'). ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-B, THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO SURRENDER THE AUTHORISATION. IF THE AUTHORISATION HAD BEEN SUSPENDED ON AN) OILIER GROUNDS, THIS COURT WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERTAINED THIS WRIT PETITION SINCE IT WOULD BE PURELY MATTER OF BREACH OF CONTRACT. BUT IN THE .NSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PETITIONER IS A MEMBER OF THE MYDOLALU MANDAL PANCHAYAT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE ACT. SECTION 11 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR A CANDIDATE. IT PROVIDES THAT A PERSON SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR BEING CHOSEN OR NOMINATED AND FOR BEING A MEMBER OF A MANDAL PANCHAYAT: (A)TO (J) XX XX K) IF, SAVE AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, HE HAS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY SHARE OR INTEREST IN ANY WORK DONE BY ORDER OF THE MANDAL PANCHAYAL, OR IN ANY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH, OR UNDER, OR BY, OR ON BEHALF OF, THE MANDAL PANCHAYAT." ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE ZILLA PARISHAD, THE AFORESAID CLAUSE (K) OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED, THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTINUE THE AUTHORISATION AND DISTRIBUTE THE FAIRPRICE COMMODITIES.

(2.) ON A PLAIN READING OF THE AFORESAIDPROVISION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ZILLA PARISHAD, SHIMOGA, IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER BEING A MEMBER OF THE MANDAL PANCHAYAT CANNOT HAVE AUTHORISATION TO DISTRIBUTE THE FAIRPRICE COMMODITIES.

(3.) THE FUNCTIONS AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF FAIRPRICE COMMODITIES AND GRANT OF AUTHORISATION HAVE NOT BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE MANDAL PANCHAYAT. IT IS NOT ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MANDAL PANCHAYAL. IT IS ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ZILLA PARISHAD. THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER HOLDS AUTHORISATION TO DISTRIBUTE FAIRPRICE COMMODITIES DOES NOT CAUSE ANY DISQUALIFICATION TO HIM NOR CLAUSE (K) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED.