MUDDE GOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. I.A. No. I for impleading is allowed since the applicant is a member of the Mandal Panchayat and he has sufficient interest in the proper constitution of the Mandal Pancnayat.

(2.) This petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) The petitioner is one of the elected members of the Babi Mandal Panchayat in Mandya District. After the elections were held, the Prescribed Officer issued a notice of meeting for the election of Pradhana and Upa-pradhana on 10-4-1987 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishad, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short 'the Act') Read With Rule 4 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Pradhana and Upa- pradhana Election) Rules, 1987 (in short 'the Rules') for holding the first meeting after the constitution of the Mandal Panchayat on 22- 4-1987 at 3-00 p.m. The notice was issued for the purpose of election of Pradhana and Upapradhana. By that notice he invited notices of motion as required under Rule 4(2) of the Rules in writing calling upon the members to nominate another member as Pradhan and Upa-pradhan as the case may be duty seconded by a third member and accompanied by a statement of the member so chosen indicating that he was willing to be Pradhana or Upa-pradhana if elected. Pursuant to the said notice which is produced as Annexure-A in the writ, petition, the Prescribed Officer received a notice dated 21-4-1987 under Annexure-B in writing and that notice indicated that the petitioner should be chosen as a Pradhan as required under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. Likewise, another notice was received by the Prescribed Officer indicating that one H.S. Sidde Gowda Bin Dollegowda, another elected member should be chosen as Pradhan as required under the aforesaid rules. Both these notices of motion dated 21-4-1987 were received at 12-00 Noon. Similarly two other notices dated 21-4-1987 produced as Annexures-B2 and B3 proposing the names of A.N. Chikkadalegowda and one Smt. Chikkolamma Kom. M. Girigowda were received by the Prescribed Officer nominating them for the posts of Upapradhan. All these notices of motion were in proper form and they had been properly proposed and seconded. However, Siddegowda Bin Dollegowda who was proposed and seconded to the post of Pradhan subsequently tendered his resignation from the Mandal Panchayat and the same was accepted by the Administrative Officer, Babi Mandal Panchayat by his endorsement dated 17-3-1988. Thus the petitioner alone' was left in the field to the post of Pradhan. It is further averred in the petition that M/s. Srinivasaiah and Basavaraju were nominated by the Adhyak- sha of the Mandal Zilla Parishad but not by the Mandya Zilla Parishad and therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.5859 of 1987 before this Court challenging the validity of the nomination of members so nominated under Section 5(3) of the Act. In that petition an interim order was made by this Court on 21-4-1987 staying the election of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan scheduled to be held in terms of the notice (Annexure-A). Consequently, the election to those posts were not held by the Prescribed Officer. That writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous since the nominated members Srinivasaiah and Basavaraju tendered their resignation. The resultant position is that the election to the posts of Pradhan and Upapradhan should have been continued from the stage from which it was stayed by the interim order made by this Court on 21-4-1987.