M K KINAIKAR Vs. BELGAUM ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed as a common petition challenging the validity of the nominations made by the Zilla Parishad, Belgaum District, Belgaum, to certain Mandal Panchayats as well as granting approval to the nomination made to two Taluk Panchayat Samithis under Section 135(2)(f) of the Act.

(2.) Unfortunately the office has not noticed that a common petition could not have been filed in respect of the separate resolutions passed by the Zilla Parishad in exercise of two distinct powers conferred on it by separate provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has confined his prayer only in regard to the nomination made to Belgaum Taluk Panchayat Samithi which is to be found as Subject 8 in Annexure-E - a true copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the Zilla Parishad held on 31-7-1989. In subject No. 8 Belgaum Panchayat Samithi at its Meeting held on 16-3-1988, in subject No. 10 made nomination of five persons in accordance with the provisions made in Sub-section (2) of Section 135 of the Act. One of the requirements for that nomination to take effect is the approval which is required to be accorded by the Zilla Parishad. It is in that behalf in subject No. 8 the first respondent Belgaum Zilla Parishad accorded approval and that approval is challenged on the sole ground that the nomination made is of five persons who all belong to the male sex and a woman is not nominated as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 135.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7 Mr. Farooq strenuously contended that there is no mandate in sub-section (2) of Section 135 to nominate a woman or woman to be on the Taluk Panchayat Samithi. It is only director if and not mandatory. He contended that in the constitution of Mandal Panchayats specific provision is made to reserve seats for women whereas sub-section (1) of Section 135 has made no such provision, and therefore this Court should lean in favour of a construction making the suggestion of a woman member to be nominated as directory and not mandatory.