C V NAGARAJ Vs. TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a resident of Srirampura in Shimoga District. He is aggrieved by the notice dated 3-12-1988 as at Annexure-C issued by the Tahsildar and Returning Officer holding the election to the offices of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhana of Gadikoppa Mandal Panchayat. His grievance is that the notice specifies continuation of the meeting which had stood adjourned, as evidenced by the proceedings recorded on 26-11-1988 as at Annexure-A. He contends that there should be provision for receiving fresh nominations 24 hours before the scheduled time of election and it cannot be a continuation of the earlier first meeting.

(2.) I do not think, this Court should accede to that contention. In some-what similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court has taken a different view in the case of Venkataramanappa & others v. The Tahsildar (W.As. 1418 to 1424 of 1987). The first meeting convened by the Returning Officer under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Mandal Panchayat (Election of Pradhana & Upa-Pradhana) Rules, 1987, was postponed on account of some directions issued by the State Government, It was held on the postponed date, the Returning Officer ought no to have permitted the new members who were subsequently nominated after the date on which postponement took place and the election must take place only according to the list of members as it existed on the date of postponement.

(3.) The ratio of that decision is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the meeting was adjourned indefinitely to a future date on 26-11-1988 on account of total disorder and chaos and rioting inside and outside of the Mandal Panchayat office when the first meeting was convened. When the adjournment itself is not challenged, it is not open to the petitioner now to question the correctness of Annexure-C, which is no more than continuation of the proceedings originally scheduled for 26-11-1988.