B K CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of these two petitions filed as public interest litigation seeking the same relief though on different grounds to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Karnataka State Election Commission (for short, 'the Commission') to hold election to the Gram Panchayats in the State of Karnataka so that new elected body in each Panchayat is constituted well within time as mandated under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India irrespective of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Amendment Ordinance No. 1/99 (Ordinance) amending the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. In W. P. 3826/99 the vires of the ordinance have been challenged whereas in W. P. 3679/99 the vires of the ordinance have not been challenged.

(2.) ). In W. P. 3679/99 it has been averred that under Article 243e the duration of the Panchayat is five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and its duration cannot be extended any further. So also an election to constitute a Panchayat should be completed before the expiry of the said five year term and the responsibility of conducting such elections vests with the State Election Commission. The term of existing Panchayats is to expire in the months of March/april, 1999. Time required for conducting election would be a period of one month in the minimum and therefore, the process of election should have commenced by this time. Respondent No. 2 has so far not published the calendar of event for holding the elections to the Panchayats and respondent No. 1 has attempted to delay the process of elections by issuing the ordinance; that respondents have failed to perform the constitutional duty and obligations cast upon them by adopting the strategy of promulgating an ordinance to amend certain provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, thereby to delay the elections which if held as mandated by the Constitution would not be in the interest of the Ruling party in power; that respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to flout the constitutional mandate to achieve its political end.

(3.) IN W. P. 3826/99 in addition to what has been stated in W. P. No. 3679/99, it has been stated that even if the State has the power to amend Sections 4 and 5 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the real purpose of the ordinance being to postpone the elections due to be held to the Gram Panchayats nullifying the constitutional mandate enjoined under Article 243e (3) (a) of the Constitution of India would be ultra vires the Constitution and therefore null and void. That ordinance having been given effect to from the date of notification dated 28th January, 1999 has created an anomalous position regarding the existing Gram Panchayats as they can neither be dissolved nor can be allowed to function beyond the period of five years. That respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge its constitutional duties. It has been prayed that the Press Note Annexure-'b' issued by the Commission postponing the elections being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India is liable to be quashed.