MAHADEVAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 221 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 22-12-1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur in No. Elecn. Dis. 60/88-89 Annexure-E. The Deputy Commissioner has held that the 4th respondent cannot at all be disqualified under Section 12(1) (iii) of Karnataka Act No. 20/1985 as she has not absented for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Mandal Panchayat without the leave of the Mandal Panchayat.

(2.) Sri B. Rudragowda, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondent No. 4 had remained absent from the Mandal for more than four months, therefore, the latter portion of Section 12(1) (iii) of Karnataka Act No. 20/1985 is attracted. As such the Deputy Commissioner ought to have declared that the seat has become vacant.

(3.) It is not possible to accept this contention. The Mandal Panchayat itself in its Resolution dated 18-10-1988 produced as Annexure-D has confined its decision to the absence of the 4th respondent from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Mandal Panchayat. It is this resolution which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for disqualifying the 4th respondent. The Deputy Commissioner on considering Section 12(i) (iii) of Karnataka Act No. 20/1985 has held that as the 4th respondent has remained absent without the leave of the Mandal Panchayat for only three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Mandal Panchayat, she cannot be disqualified from being a Member of the Mandal Panchayat and her seat cannot be declared to have become vacant. Section 12(1) (iii) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act No. 20/1985) reads thus: 12. Disqualification for Members.- (1) If a member of a Mandal Panchayat.-