Maruti Parshuram Kugji vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Maruti Parshuram Kugji vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
% Re_sid_eI_1_t of-Muéhgaiidig 1*a1j1_;1;a,._  

nnaitrruvu-I-vi-\ l"\I.."I-a-:.,4-' 'V

WP.-1-2062!-2006 '

¢ a g.-- --- 4 q...-

iri "'iiE iii in cu 'T 617'  AT' infifmmizi
DATED rms mm mm mw-%onr MARCH, Q:_CiCV):E: :'  %
mm Homm: MR. Jusirtcm    

I PL-.:'m'...:eH He.1-'ag'5?=- I  "§4E"!5:§'.P!'o_i 



Sri. Yellappa Basvgni Tash.i1dar,  :.

Age: Major, Occ; Agflcultum, "  < V ._
Member, Telu1:%PaJi19hayat, 3?  "  
%  '.=a".-19:':-_m'.;'i!.':.'a

 ....     "  (_lnW-.P.!{o.j-12061/O6)--

Sri. Mara1ti.§?arshi:ifa1;1~Eiu%gji,"~~.. ' -
Aged %4B/y:a1*s, Occ: 'Agricultum,
President Taluka Panéhay "t,-. Belga1'_1_1i1_.
R] o YaJ1_ur, Téduka   

k Bc1g£J%Lm; £)iatw:ic"t.-~  V %  parzrxea;-9.'-3

(In W.P'.No§=19062l06)

V V L Stat§§"'of=I*{faI.1't1t;taka,

',nIr -ii-u Q"-urn-u3a.-mi-4-5-uwuv
MJ 1543


 .}Dcparnnent of Rural Development-as:
  "«Pancii:;3yat Raj, ' ' '
  V ~ 7 ;
  f*Ba:1ga1ore=-'S60 001. RESPONDENT'

‘ v (3! girl’. Ma lhruyanappa; AGA -folf OI_ R4-1)


W.P. 12061/2006 C/W


These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 8r. 227 of
the Constitution praying to quash the impugned order-“‘passed
by the 1″ respondent-State Government dated 27.02.2006 as
per Annexure-H as illegal and void and etc.. — 2.

These petitions coming on for final disposai”

having been heard and reserved for I3I’0fl011_I1CB!IiBI1″[VOf– o1ti_er,q

this day the Court made the following!” A

1. In these two writ pefifionsviieojntxnon i1uestions:’i)f fact and
law are raised. Hence, toeether and are

disposed of by this . iv

2. The cha1ieoi§g.Ii1ade -,the”petitioners is directed against
the order itiypp holding that the
petitioners of misconduct in the discharge of

their dutriiiespas Adhyaksha respectively of the

Ta1ui{.a”‘Panchayath; Bfegeum, Beigaum District -41– t1i..it~

‘1A’i’:|::|’IA’ « rnrnnurni ”:~-\ {Jun an-n’;-I ru-ants 4-1′ a.

‘ C93,:-‘i;3{‘._’.’_’u.hJx.».I.I..|a:.gu.: «.su.n.uuvu.: .I..u.u..I..I.”” Luv uctliu. 1:126 . J..l..I.

~”f”i’i.f”-« the writ titions are assed
ii at

i _ separately,’ nature of the allegations made and the nature of

held is similar, hence it is felt appropriate to dispose of

_ itheseicases together.

” ii.’ The facts ieatiing to these writ petitions, stated in nutsheii

A are, that the petitioner in W.P.No.12061/2006 and the


w.p.1:2oe1/eooe C/w

‘petitioner in W.P. No.12062/ 2006 were elected as Members of

the Taluk Panchayath, Belgaurn for a period of 5 the

eleetious 1; -..d_ 9. ztnizizeesi 0:1. 316012905, ‘;oiée:”a-.1

the “i’aIuKa’ Panchayath was heid or; goon. i’

The Executive Officer of theV.eTa_iults”
members of the Taluka iniiltilieiimeeting.

The Executive ,. and
Upadhyaksha and other the Adhyaksha

of the Taluka proceedings of the

(pefitiouer _i’:2Qf6~3..:]’tf2GO6) interrupted the proceedings

and raised’ the issu’e ofiuiiiiication of the area into Maharastra

Siiizorfzii-:settleniei1tv—-e1″”the border dispute between Karnataka

for a long time and proposed a resolution for

siibiiiissiorif petition to the Central Government and the

Suprezneelclhoiurt in this matter. At this stage. “the Executive





permit the proposal to be tabieci for discussion as the subject

did not come within the powers, functions and jurisdiction of



W.P.12061/2006 C/w


the Taluka Panchayath and that such a resolution will be

illegal. He also informed that as the matter was the

Adhysksha permits.-:d the discusisn on t}1ect’*rf’s’r:’;V’n3r.

the Member (petitioner in P.i\io.1i;{“61.j 26.’ 5),.’ ‘ch ‘r=esu!_teci

in serious protest from they o_ther””members;'”‘i~ ;

pandemoniurn as the members _shouet.inj; ‘slogans for and
against the proposal {§4espite?”i.ei1’ottsV_ byuuthe Executive
Ofiicer to restore peace of the

meeting in a dtscip1iued::__ma1uier;~ it'”Was___Viiot possible as there

was utter Eflizyrts ms-Me by Le E..ecI….l.=’..

Ofiiner tciicnunvhsce “*0 M””‘””””*”- “t m discuss u.|.t.= borin-

issue wefe in vain’ ‘ . *}”\tsav«1esuit, the Executive C’Jfl”icer alo’ ngwith

the Ofiicers the On the same day, the Executive

= narrssted A’the…..s,b’ove incident submitted a report

V.V,da.:teti~. _ to the Chief Executive Oflicer, Zilla

A copy of the said report is produceri by

‘ i the at Annexure-D.

* on the report of the Executive Oflicer of the Taluka

lifahchayath, the Chief Executive Oificer of the Zilla Panchayath,

Belgaum, wrote to the State Government addressing a letter to


W.P.12061/2006 C/w

the Private Secretary to the Minister for Rural development and
Panchayat Raj and Minor irrigation Annexure-E bIinging.’4’te.V_the

nnfinn n
.IuI.\IInIl.r\l’ \Jl I-IL

‘oy me” Execufive Gn”‘icer. Theieai

09.05.2006 vide An.nexum–A was isaned..by§ the to

flan unrnrnnn +119 -inn-ifln-n 1’ n “I£II”|’f\l=|1’1C«I=I””‘!.1V’tE-..fi’i’aL’-.|¥’4iV.f!
\.v .54 ._-as-nun.’ tr’._|J

the petitioners calling upon then: toV”3liow-cenaepavvhy .,

should not be initiated against under’-S’eciion’:’;136 of the
Act for removing them _lllemher fAdhyaksha
of the Taluka Panchayathpflfoir were given
time till = statement and

1….– .L1…..’i… ;..’-.;.-V;.’.

Lin 6 uuj: ‘S _’y= “”1_u..u'”‘-

p. m., beilemi the Government. The show cause

notice further Jnadep it eiear if no statement written or oral

‘~ wag will he proceeded with, treating that

not have any explanation to offer and action

wouldibe in accordance with the provisions contain’ ed

‘pundef eeiaiofi 136 of the Act.

The petitioners submitted their written explanation on

.,1′?§.06.2006, but they did not appear for personal hearing fixed

on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. In the written reply submitted, the



W.P.12061/2006 C/w
w.P. 1206212006

petitioners asserted that their action seeking permission to have

a discussion and to pass a resolution in the hueetisig’…o£._tJ1_..

11}’lIJ’ITQ+ -in 1- A rnnffan .

suaunua a u.uCu.n.ua._y mu: I-LI. um. u.uaI.u.-T w

of o ffiéi’ dispute between and iviafnarasiitraawas weii» ,

witnm’ the power and junsd’ iction ofithe f!’ai1?i1-ti:1,.F5:ancha3fiath’Va3,nd

the Executive Officer was wrong insisting thatV’i’ ;

table the proposal and have discussion on to pass a
resolufion in that rega1t:i__sh.o1fl_d :b_e.::given. petitioners
denied that they had _ They also

contended on1y”£e)€encising._.their light of freedom

nt’ spmnh n….:1 1. was their 5′-gt-… and due; m ewmss the whee
‘f ‘uu::L’ people Wh’ ‘ rnembers of the Taiuka

Panchayath. « It by the petitioners that under

Rule 3_(rn) ofthe Panchayat Raj (Business) Rules,

in the opinion of the Adhyaksha is

neceissary to the notice of the Panchayat, could be

brouight eeriseihe Talulca Panchayat and permission could be

‘agivenuto discnss the same in the discretion of the Adhyaksha.

-The State Government has considered the matter in the

” of the defence taken by the petitioners and other relevant

” V materials. It referred to the provisions mtnfined 1.1_11der

in, ,

W.P.12061/2006 C/W

Section 141(2)(i] (wrongly referred as 141(1)(i) in the impugned
order) which prescribes the procedure for conduct of ‘meetings of

the Taluka Pahchayat, The p1’ovLgicI_1 gta_-g ;. A4

‘No proposition shall be disagssed .o’r”difLargV_
meeting unfess it has beef; entercti’
w.wem’r” 5 …. …m-,… _ or .%e.:vof:’a L
meeting_. in the wfittenV’nf-{quest A ” V
member may propose anyfesoiagtion with or
incidental to’ the:’subfiét:ts :n¢:.;a3d in Vhhmé list of
business. The any urgent

or”can_o’e;! afty resoluthion’ “within six months after I

;iassingVVVti-iemevcf in? accordance with clause (In).

in’: vnzwnhar :1 nine 3′: . _
…….{_, ..’…………….. .. 3…… 1…… …………. …£….. -…

the meeting and be guided by the majority
A of cafes Qivenfor or against the proposal’.

. s Referring to the above provision, the State Government

has found that the subject matter pertaining to border diopute

-between Kanlataka and Malinarashtra was not on the agenda of

5 lulu: an 11917 1′ _ 11_,m wgm _1_1__

o was-an-swan. 4 an-u.o\v-In-4-wt-J V-an-an-In at ur-

fhp ntflinnrw rns-5-H 0
“A4 /


W.P. 1 2061/2006 C/w
W.P. 1206212006


notices for discussion of the said subject at the meeting. Hence,

the member had no right to propose or table the said’ .subgeet for

It t”—-‘–~–~_.r_.t rt*–=-

d1s.cus….~ ten !=-….n.d for p.%s1…fig any msostttton. wt.»

s not an urgent s”‘o”ect of roiime. in-.att11e«–

couid be proposed for discussion at ginistsnce;/die 0

Adhyaksha. It is also evidentgthett the” suh_iect

for discussion at the instance oi’ allowed
and taken for discussioiifloy instance of
the Member-petitioner who was one of
the members ..nv:e1tter be taken up for

ditanmnsinn- “f,–._,;.1’§,”‘*~_,l,E_fI;’1’I_’V”v. ma I”ggQ’r’d_ ed 9_ findit-ta 1- n

—–w-év-v——vvoau v a 0 Ir I-5-I-5!-tl-4-I-$6 I-I-INII-It
a.a”” pet fi}t””v§i’t3’tus'”I’t:a c~«t,+-~t-at}. -.-.;”s.:—.ct-~t-ts 145, 146 at 147′ of

the Act, Vxneithei” the nor the Members of the Taiuka

Panchayathhiihad duty or function to discuss and

.. ., the ssid’v*–t’na’tter pertaining to the border dispute

a matter lefi for a. separate Forum having

authoiityf such issues. It was therefore held that the

‘._bordt%.te. dtgfittm did not legitimately constitute the duty or

_-s;_1t:=t1-1___I._, -1′ t___ ___lu__a _s_a_I:I_-h.r.a._\,r._t.. t- he d.1§.1£’-!.’.-.’3S…d. aw…
r°so1vtm’ ‘”‘d a.a”” it ‘ms *'”‘t t4′:’r’ f’t1ne'”‘n of the ‘i'””t1ka

0’ hi-ianchayath the articuiation of the same before the Taiuka

Panchayath was against public interest and for extraneous


W.P.12061/2006 C/W


purposes alien to the duties and functions of the Taluka


8. Based on the above findings. the State

to the conclusion that the pctitioners<WereAgu'i1ty_,;ojf it '

alleged against them which entaiied

son ,tia_n provided u_nder ofthe "iSeeoIdi11gly;'i'

the Panchayath and of iss
vitiated the atn'm_sphei'e"' ' xfiunctioning and
developmentgoff the divisive activity
creating of the panchayath on
were ordered to be removed from

the post' i Adhyaksha of the Taluka

_ Paneaghayth ..inin1ediate efiect. T Aggrieved by the same, the

" 1- o u
present L at . e.1…ons ….=-m ..L-d

9..W Vfilounsel appearing for the petitioner contends

«:was no fair and reasonable opportunity given to the

3.00 p.m., the petitioners were under the ‘


ve th .ir s v. He contends that though time was

_.- j__ __d

an .1-5; 1;


1’… 4.1.. .-.-vua , ,
LU I..I..I. PPS G.I..l.\.«la





they had already filed written replies, they wouid be given time


W.P.12061/2006 C/W


to give their oral statement. It is also contended by the Counsel
for the petitioners that once the allegations were t_h__.


– u-u-..-u.n-.1-u.–J Iv I-I-no 9!-II-lolflfl.

gfl nfhnrihr m a lunar! to fits-..*ne

th*r*afier “i”C’f:f:1’i in th* *””r by providing ,

lead evidence. Reliance is placed 4by’-the:w-!earned ‘

Counsel on a decision rendexedby theinpex case of:

Khan: chant! Vs Union qr India in 1953 so

300. It is also contendedLt.’1atthefl1;e;iott.iof.the Exact-am Officer
of the Taluka Panchayat was nefifioners and no

opportunity was to next contended that


petitioner in w..?. who was discharging his

duties as the attention of the Court to

v e_V$ect;it§n with removal of Adhyaksha and

Hence. he contends that action if at all any

tee Mieitttieatea and taken against the petitioner in

flvW.P. 2006 only under Section 140(4) of the Act.

A with the allegation made charging the petitioners

misconduct, learned Counsel has contended that the

actions of the petitioners in expressing their views, feelings and


w.P.12o61/2006 C/w
1 1

emotions will not amount to misconduct. He has contended

e that this was not a new incident that was happeninqgwissiisuch

:eec.u.:o*-s were in fee. pass..d in the %. …:=.zi V:-Deputy
Commissioneis used to suspend the fiS”i'”?.iL”i’1″‘ .- fie -pier’-~’. V

neiiance on the decisions of the Ape); fjinpcase of i

of India on on. V: J.Ahm¢d. r.sra9me”api’Am mg,

contend that the action of not constitute
m1sco’ nduot. Reliance :«9n:th.e judsnnent rendered
in the case of Ram and On,

reported in _ 1574, freedom of speech

und-.. A.¢L= 1$§(£,\a) meant. t..- -.g’-3.1-‘t_ e-“press _n_.s _p1__.1-n
Hy .-. )-…,….-d- [T iii any G”1’|£nr

7 mannerpairid V this” Right can be reasonably

restricted only for mentioned in Article 19(2). He

” «..hasv-‘:oiaq_A-placed on the decision reported in the case of

Board snamananpur, through Bishan

” it it ‘|i”e’pj,._’.__JiVe1V:i-(«it Magistrate, Bhahlahanpur, reported in AIR

j 1953 369, in support of his contention that removal

it it V’ of the petitioners on the ground of misconduct was illegal.

is also placed on the decision in the case of

i .Rhanua..a…_.h.t.In! 1!; 3:91: of and Ann,

— -1- —3.’—



W.P.12061/2006 C/w


in 1999(1) XL! 731, to emphasize the fact that there “was no

persistent remis on the part of the petitioners.

11. The learned Government Pleader has contended:

petitioners had committed miscond;uct’*by’t’omiuig[ ‘adisciission’ f

on a sensitive subject which was the

d1.._es n.._.d -_._.I _.1._rI.s -1′ t._- _a_l1_.1<.a~~ a_.n-h-.},r,t,a.n_ mcned ill-will
M-'ong various sec"uo'1s arru""" den-t';:ar"b=" =-M" Tue conduct of

the petitioners. it is contended', The actions of
the member the against the
Authority of disharmony in the
residents_of_Athe"'area,V_' functions of the Taluka
Panchayat.asiiprnentionedaiunder-9 Sections 145, 146 and 147 of

the Act, contended that petitioners had resorted to

= were their powers and functions and it was

"fluent Government 1"-'ieader has auso


contended the petitioners had deliberately abstained from

hearing and did not avail the opportunity of personal

i heafling and hence they cannot be heard to say that there was

_,Vany violation of principles of Natural Justice. He also asserts

that 'misconduct' as defined under Section 136 of the Act


W.P.12061/2006 C/w

includes any such disgraceful conduct on the part of petitioners
which is highly reprehensible, irresponsible and at

distlnrhlng me peace ‘_In t.h__. l c H

___._..-J .

12. I have heard the learned ccunsel itolti’. the it

petitioners and the learned Govemni.ent:1′.l’Ieadler

considered the entire materials» hefore The” V

n c n ‘ ., n ‘ 1, u “u. n V
nueshcn that arises for ccns’.dera*J.en in the “WI pe 1 Mr. W

Govemment removing thg.patiti_ne-m f_i'”s.m”the post of

Members ‘of ‘–‘tF’t:1ltJ_IeLit dPcmchayat is

illegal at? t

13. It has outset that the petitioners had
been Iemovgd’ on the ground that they had

committed miscondtiot ‘tn “ttctjng against the interest of the

V’ alsoflof State by raising an issue that was not

Taluk Panchayat and which vitiated the

W.P. 12061/2006 C/W


personal hearing by fixing the date of their appearance on

29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. Though they did not chooseVV_0t9::iaVail

1-an rrruru-ti-I-11 113117

4. 1,.” ‘ . ‘ ‘._ * ”

I-I.-‘l.D lltfl-I’-I-I-I-I.l.LI.l.-_y F319 L.|.|:I.I. 1.1. t-I-I..I»I.r:\-ulna.’ I-3-.a-v ‘ ‘!n and a.’ ‘

submitted their written A pewsal ‘

by them makes it clear that they

proposal of unifying the area wiizhthe of e.

wen within their jurisdiction they eeee with an
intention to pass a. xesoiiition have also
stated that the Executive witoneiiiii-‘~asseIting that no
such permission the subject and

flees a meal’.-3″”? ‘” * *-‘* »**=m=-end. r

LIAILI. Jays. I..|..I.UuIt. &\v’B!oI-0

15. The pe’fitioti::r- 12062/2006 stated in his reply

that as »– Karnataka Taluk Panchayat

_ (Flusiriessi. R111 .1999 _’ nv m__tter, the opinion of the

P’anehayat”woui¢i”he ‘omught before the Taluica Panchayat and

0 it _ that”tJ1e .._reso«h1fion to be passed was one such matter in his

he has categorically asserted in the reply submitted

, giving permission to discuss any subject of interest to the

id Taiuka Panchayat or to the people in general was within his

discretion as Adhyaksha and that he had acted within his power


w.p.12o51/2005 C/w
W.P. 1206212006


and authority. The reply submitted by the petitioner in the

one gem


connected writ petition bog W1_P.. No.12Qt51



I-1-In csafnn ‘I on-f in 1-31:: avian: 1-n: r,|1n1\ -1-uni-3-“gm.-u ‘Va;
I-I-In\t 35’-I-I-I\t ‘fl-1’t\’L, I-I-I ‘-I-I-KI $31..-.l.¢l.Dl..«, -Isl-‘I mu J”. Mn .11′

w Q’,

asserts that the subject was propose-ft by

pass a resolution as it was within ;3owier’s.and”-aufi1orfi:.t of ‘

the Panchayat.

16. Tho ‘”‘v’iors and 5.5-eta’.-._ns.– of-the. ‘r-‘-.:1<~2?–%c-uu-
enumerated in Chapter of Panchayat Raj Act,
1993. The is and Powers of
Taluk Panchayiat,V Section 145
states t_ha.tH perform the functions
specified,' in scxhea.u1§oi:,1"si1h–cr:ause (2) of Section 145 enjoins a

duty on so far as the Taluk Panchayat

Linen-"1_io1neti* which inciude the construction and

augi'nent_atie1:1° of water supply works, filing of half yearly report

1 :the activities of Grama Panchayats within the taluk,

adequate number of class rooms and mam' tamm' ' g

school buildings in proper condition, providing water


ComInittees,,z1'1amely, (a) General Standing Committee; 0)

w.p.12o51/2006 c/w


supply and sanitation; and acquiring land for locating the

manune pits away from the dwelling houses in the

17. Section 146 of the Act provides that the V’

assign to a Taluk Panchayat functiorislhin’ ‘relation l 1′

Government by the sfiectton’-A14′? of the Act
provides for General ‘ It states
that the Taluk_ to do all acts
necessary out of the functions
entrusted. toxj ‘%’a¢1e;§s¢ga particular, and without
prejudice to the exercise all powers specified

under this ‘Act. _ of the Act pmvides for Standing


“-I” A ‘1’ In 1′
l.IuIy.:l_;1-l|.I.Ia-lv*3o 1 4

(‘A Dav: fhI!’l’I” I-nu-nus Q GI-an-v-up: ‘In
Kl’) all I.’

-1 n-

|.’Jl.afl-ll L11.’


Plannm 1; Committee; and (C) Social Justice

V l _ Confinittee} 149 of the Act provides for Functions of the

H H K ‘tandingflommittee and Section 150 of the Act provides for the

pxjoceclure to be followed by the Committees.




18. Section 152 of the Act provides for the powers and duties

-1′ th_. Adhyaksha. The Adhyaksha is to be the execufivehead of ‘

the Tale” Panch vet. and he is required to convene,«~~preside*

conduct u1ee”‘”g* of the .alu.. – s._…_,.yat. _I:Ie”‘is ‘I’§q~ui1ed–

discharge all duties i1npos’d “”61 exercise_ .;.’.1 .__.the,fpowe:’s

conferred on him under the Act and-Atize “He ‘~

required to exercise over all sup:e’Ivision”‘
executive administratioyrof if-‘anchayat. }He has the
power to accord. sanction’uIiitoi Rs.25,000/- in a
year for the of relief to those who

me affected ._.y in the Taluk.

19. ‘i’here’ is “he, in the Act or the Rules which
its members, or its Adhyaksha to

any regarding transferring any portion of the

. xthye S”‘te comhg within the jurisdiction of that

H ‘F5anchayath in favour ‘f the “eigh.,cu..’…g State. In fact

with the powers, functions and duties of the

this subject is quite alien and not in manner connected

i “‘._iP’a;1chayath. The duties, powers, functions as referred to under

-*:Sections 145 to 149 of the Act do not either directly or indirectly

sugg_st that the members of the Taluka Panchayath can have a


11.4 /


w.1=. 12061/2006 C/w


discussion of this nature in the panchayath. The subject does

not deal with the administration, the development tineother

m1£I.t…d. w..–1f….. m..e-.s1.z’es pertaining t… the Ts-.lu..e
‘i’h’r-for’ it ‘s ‘ ery clear that th’ pe”t1o’ers had u*”d b’3ro_n”»

their power, jurisdiction and ‘iventtuing’ ha i

discussion on the subject and the petitioneIseV1irere’_v ;

error in forcing the discussion on _subV_iiectA_uini’:the:§meeting of

the Taluka Panchayath; f c.

20. The next équestioiiiii it he considered is
whether of the petitioners
can be to misconduct for
which, taken. Section 136 of the Act deals
with of Panchayath for misconduct. It
unde’I_:; Z

fihygrnrnaq if 1’1 flu; I.-_ 1 (an Jan uwrnmrnapdngfegl

_ .._.., .__…,…,… . ., .. ………..,. …. ..,………….
it of Panchayat or otherwise and I_f necessary
i’~s¢;r:e’r-L;smc;+i;1..’ng a report from the one: Panchayat and
the same}, may remove any member afler
givI_’sig him an opportunity of being heard and after such

, H “enquiry as if deems riecessary rfsuoh member has been

iittlil-‘ff: nf rnfonnnrhnnf in Ha J-ianhnsv-no nf’ I-n-In Ila:-Hoe no» A!’
vvlllvu ‘JJ IUIIIN-“‘4’u”I”pW9’\fl “W “”I luflailliafldiabfuil ‘it III!-‘l lulrlflllfiolil V, “J

any disgraceful conduct or has become inmyable of

performing his duties as a member. ‘



W.P.12061/’2006 C/W
W.P. 1206212006


21. Section 140 deals with resignation or of

Adhyaksha a11d_U_pa_dhyaksl1a. Sub clause (4) 0;

g1_*_sg1_1_*gg 1-111: __..

“E-u-erg’ Adhyafif-u7., at-ui {IpruT3hya:?r;s§3fi’.ooof_ f

Panchayat shall, after oppozyzéniiy is .0-_2__,n 0′
hearing him, (and if neceeeénzy afier Vobto:’}u’_n;;e_;a*’Vm;5on
fi*om the zma Panchayat gsonsidenrng] me seam) be
removable from V Fab ._ or
Upadhyalcsha by the ‘Cgovém§n;en_t:for_»;jiih:oondua in the

a’i’sea’?’uuye”” of di;iies,–j’o perfiihrieniiy remiss in


mg disc.f:i21}g§,:e.o-.;raf. :_?11.:A.r1s13;.r1′.v’i.x1.t!’.’;2.’-.=.V_Vm;1;;r’;3—9..-‘5 Ad.h3,u.1r.:s.’-.a or
tem;;méd.0 not cease to be a
membe_fVu3;ide}’::sub~s$ec:1:fVfoii'(£?)1sA’iaIlnot be eligible for re-
elE3ctI’on. or Upadhyalcsha during the
as member of such Tafuk

0′ ‘*S11b’is.iause (:3!estate§’t1iet.-

‘V or Upadhyaksha removed from his
“oflioe winder sub-section (4) may also be removed by the
“Goven”u’iient from membership ofthe Taluk: Parwhayat. *.

«_ ” “ft is thus clear ma” t the aforementioned provisions

:”coV1’:2.tained under Section 136 and 140 of the Act provide for

flveremoval of a member or an Adhyaksha as the case may be, by


W.P.12061/2006 C/w


the Government if he] she is found to have committed

nnsconduct in the discharge of his] her duties or foundptoihave

whether the conduct of the pefifioneizfs agnctjints

or a disgraceful conduct so ‘to entail a coVnseVqueIi[ce”uof ” ,

removal from their post. The i’:nisconduc.t’:isinotzdefined in
the Act. ‘Misconduct’ in conduct.
The dictionary meaning Jot’ »__’_’.*misccnduct’ is

‘unacceptable ::beha’v'”iour’* v.(g§;:’ can be seen from












border dispute is a is “” emotive issue

serious Iepercussionsfif vit_i’is.4ali0wed to be raised at difi’*re’t

forums, ~~–ioca1 bodies. Establishment of local

3 ” «–bodies’i~such as Gram—-Panchayats, Taluka. Panchayats and Zilla

“sheen done with the avowed purpose of

self-governments to take the powers to the

Panehayat level so that each unit at the grass-mot level

-.=:1V..hepi.. a. pc-..i.;on L {Ed out their need and address the same
‘oyg taking “p d*’v*”‘p”-ental activines. .hese issues ze1..t.1.._g t-

government and of providing basic necessities to the people of



W.P. 12061 /’$1006 C/’W
W.P. 12062 I 2006
2 1

that area. If these issues are allowed to be raised which are
emotive issues having divisive tendency creating divisioriatnong
t..e mem.,em -1′ di_ereut lanyage and mups, it csn1iot..,b’o;t___ibe

co-existence of different groups of people jj.i1tt’a§f’ V-ELF”-f”‘7_p”‘*V’§p_

l’-.. I’ ‘I V
fa ;.

member of Taluka Panchayatr by ~’

discharge his duties and and” to’ those

people in the matter of to the area
which he represents supply. roads,
drainage, health -ae..1§Ip1Ti’§riiber is elected by a
particular ‘of. a different language. it
cannot he me p1._rpose _f fi_gh1i11g

against the State ‘people and to e’ surr L11 t I.l.l. “ea

which he Iepresez1ts’Vbe7sevc’:red from the junsd’ ‘iction of the State

~ . guleziged neighbouring State. The petitioners,

to think that they have been elected by the

had a desire and w1]11n’ ‘ guess to merge their

aharea neighbouring State and that it was petitioners’

it ‘C_*c1li,i;_i,’ ttutction to voice the concern. of such people who had

it such matters of border dispu


out of control and result in large-scale violence and mass


W.P.12061/2006 C/W


destruction of public property. The elected representatives of

the local bodies cannot be expected ibcus on such. .. negative

resolution to be passed in that regard, smacks

of ulterior motive intended only ” ;

harmonious conduct of the of Teanchayat and
also the peaceful and the people of the
locality. An elected Iaiuka Panchayat

cannot be in :snch._.activifies which have

s1.._11 f__r rea..h1’t%g co11._eq’n-n-r:s In L- insta..- ca..e, the
…..4.:.:.:………A.:.’..”hL’….+.,…..V.’.’:….: 1;. ,1- …L’.’.-……. -1. ….1…..; …. ..¢…¢…: 1…… . . . . . -..
lJUI..I.I..I.lJ CLEO l..l.’..«1.l,\#..U|.l. I.’ lull) ;g|.I.’.7|wJ.3 Ly .l..I.fl.L Hl.i:’I.|.CLI. I–lCJ.CFl.I..I.fl.|J|.JVC

and when-they were against by issuing notice g

such acts on t’.heir’]. justified their actions and

it expression of their freedom of speech

hi’ a Fundamental Right.

_ 23. or Adhyaksha of’ a Taluka Panchayat cannot

e 4″-..Ve’xercise..his/her Fundamental Right of freedom to say anything

A -.eiieryfl1ing and to do such acts in the meeting of the

Vfiparichayat, unmindful of its consequences, disregarding the

Licontours of his duties, powers and functions. If any member


W.P.12061/2006 C/w


behaves in such an irresponsible manner. such an act and

c-n_.u..t has to be characterised as a. tnisconductVd»~and a



dis El.ru”K;-Lu; w……..t. It is a mt%n..u.t bec__u_e;”l1’_’e-.is.___do_ing


the established and Iecogn1ze’ d Eat”

tantamounts to challenging .t}1e___ Stalx?_v.”GOVCI11l1J;u@Ill£l. a.t};c1″:t§»» _

authorities. It is disgraceful because having elected as the
member of the Taluka of Be-lgaum District

of Karnataka State, if he and for passing

a resolution ‘up’ t::§;.e.n-“meeting of the Panchayat raising
‘oord*r disputes it czeates between t..- two hnmnstic

happiness of the v11lag'” es. The only intention

the l'”matterVdis_cussed and in intending to have a

. ,.,1es01tl3i:iQn.: passedV”to’*–t-he said effect was to whip up the divisive

o. to over the emotional raze of the people to

ends. This subject matter cannot, at any

. _retch. ixnagination. be brought within the puwiew of the

pa-were and -.1.n..-ti.I.n.._ of the Taluka Panchayat and

‘ despite the seine, .l..I. Lu “”””ber U1. l.l.I.I.m ..=……a . at-.cl1ay…. 9……

u the Adhyalcsha intended to have a discusdon in tlr ‘**tter ts

pass a resolution to that effect, the same will have to be


w.p.12o51/2005 C/w

characterised as a misconduct on the part of the Member or the

A_dhya_k_sha who s ch 11 s;;_ter desijgh.

24. Although leazned counsel for the petitioners: .

they were exercising their F’Imdamei1té1″l?.igh,ts

was bonafide, not intended to breed hméhgsic the

State Government that informing
the Adhyaksha any discussion
on the the Adhyaksha of
the Talukav «– with their design and
pmceeded with order to pass a resolution
which petitioners were deliberately

m’._t_ter with $11.01; divisive designs. Therefore, 1

the of misconduct as it is a conduct unbecomixig

_ of at. Taiukah’ hanchayat Memer elected to work ‘ for the

‘ 4”’««VDdevelo1).n”1e’i1t of the Taluka Panchayat and for general good of

‘people of that area. Reliance placed by the learned counsel

i .for the petitioners on the decision in the case of Chintamanrao

and Am. 173. state qfllmdhya Pmduh napoma in 4.1.1: 1951 so


W.P.1206l /2005 cm
W.P. 12062/2006

118 to contend that the petitioners had only exercised their

Fundamental Rights is of no assistance. The said. judgtnenitthas


.’__..__.–.–_..’I.. –… 3 p.
Luualuuuu as 11 (Jenni

Panchayat has got a Fundamental to iissuesfixi

t. a d cheumstiances of” the ca-;se«

the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat g11i.se5 ,

his freedom of speech and expIelsaion4._V when subject
has absolutely no connection .\oowers.– hirictions and
duties enjoined upon the subject is of
such sensitive and’«;.e?:notive will retard peace

us.-.. ….q..v._..J …–.._ _.–..–.._….J.V – _ –

and ha. ms! 4 en.._.:i1r~ tobe sta-_.d h m that a

use of ..Iii!emher for a totally’ ” ulterior and

extraneous co’a.sidera-itlonsito suit their divisive tendencies and

* the claim’ that it was their Fundamental

to taiseljsuich issues.

_ 25. “As the contention of the learned Counsel for the

‘ jsctitionérs that pmceedings initiated under Section 136 of the

A against the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat was illegal,

it to be stated that the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat

this also a member of the Taluka Panchayat and if he has

he /

W.P.12061/2006 C/W


committed misconduct in his capacity as such and even if the

impugned order does not refer to Section 140 under

inasmuch as an Adhyaksha or Upadhyakshai 4a=

in Wen , Section 140 aiso has–“ii1e.:saine ~eii’ect’=

Panchayat can be iemoved from the he, ;

guilty of misconduct or disgraceinleeeonducti is; the effect
under Section 136 in ‘r:espec11i of Va. oi the Taluka
Panchayat. Only because referred in the

impugned order; ‘it;ap.tioes’=._net thatthe order passed is

vitiated. A… Le Jig…c;ient;.eQ;-e1e12t,.cned’u…der -…..cti.-an 136 and
1-40{4} air” satisfied. ‘i’he*’efc:~.”* ther” ‘s “1’ s”b”‘”””‘-e ‘-1 ‘L’-

_ 26. “she next c”on_tention of the petitioner is that there was no

no pe_Iso11ai was given to the petitioners before they

i _were foungd of the alleged misconduct. It has to be stated

it Vppetitiohers were issued with the show cause notice which

A p:.contained the allegations made against them and also made

-.re_feirence to the report submitted by the Executive Officer. To

tithe said show cause notice, petitioners have given a reply. The


W.P.12061/2006 C/w


allegation made in the show cause notices is admitted by the

petitioners. In fact they have justified their action

t…..y mad -Lght t. do so .._e_ my to represent the


peopie n eiec-“d firm. In s”ch L.I.l.|.4-“~.

contention of the petitioners tha” t they iJee11vv.serfyeci

with separate art1c’ les of charges fraxna edand shponldvlihave’; ‘V 0»

given an opportunity of explaining’ lttheir stand,-“:is.’:not legally

tenable. If the petitionersgiiéliad ithepnvviadlegatiolnsltnade, then
the question of following would have
arisen. Even otheitvise, that in the instant

case =.vh……il-=-a is!§fi…_1i the State Government

opportunity to and were aiso asked to ‘ pane

in person on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. for

0’ hearing. Heweve , the petitioners did not choose to

to avail the opportunity of personal

hen VThef,r:have only filed their replies, that too admitting

‘their in tabling such proposal in the meeting and in

Cdisci_is.sin.g t.__. sa__. with intention to pass a resolution. In
1:11” cn””umstan~=s. the contentien o. the metmnem t….ra-… no *’……11’

in the matter cannot be accepted.


W.P.12061/2006 C/w


2’7. The further contention of the petitioners that the

rules of business, the Adhyaksha was entitled to “t{:j1sigsf’:’or

discussion any matter in his discretion is totally ‘1?nisc:cnceived;

It has to be stated that the Karnatake,-‘Panchaitst 1

Rules, 1999, cannot by any

interpreted to confer power onVit1:ié~~../[_\dh1in?£11£_si1aVAitcj iiefore” V 9

‘g fn ‘H1591-‘

I-H-I-s’II-Ciel-I-lI.l..I. -, lav I-».I.J.\t’


LL”-; ‘Fn’I-r|’Iru Du-nninatruf a nnaffer pnriniiaifl



particuiariy for the purpose psssinkg d’iesoiu,fion to transfer a
portion of the vterritory :”cf” to the
neighboming§_Stste matter cannot be
termed to the notice of the
Panchayet or -‘permission could be given to

discuss in “then vnieetinig .– the Taluka Panchayat. If the

_ Adhyshshe. uses “‘hi_sdiscietion under the Karnataka Panchayat

.l.’…. .1.’ _______ .-.9.

féhé ‘[‘)1E’lCf:(‘I ‘ t 101’ umuuaaiuu,

then “the discretion excersied will be alien to his powers which

‘ Vibe uopfaosed to the very purpose for which the Taluka

A is established viz., for the welfan-: and well-being of

-the? local area. On the other hand, Section 141(2)(i) which deals

” the matters to be discussed and not to be discussed and



WP. E2061 fzuuu C;”\-‘ti’

the manner in which it has to be discussed, clearly spells out

th_.t no propositions shall be discussed at any ordinary tneefing

‘”””-es it haw been e1’I..-_.1ed. in the notice convening

or in the ca” “fa “pee-“*’ meeting a. L… w_L_-en._.I*_equeat*of anch ‘

28. -h,. subject taken up fot’_V:’diecussion .by’Lth€;’v«;3etitione1’sti’

does not fall withi.=1 the h,__tt otthe *pOwers and functions of the


Taluka Panchayat and i5 tmope -1′ Section
141(2) of the Av-::’1:_.:” was rlgh.
and justifiegl had worked against
the tntetataat oi’. of the State while raising
the isstie -concern of the Taluka Panchayat
and whioh the vitiate the atmosphere for the

the development of the Panchayth. The

staté G-t’)’-hf£3t’LL*;_en. is ..1..r.» jtigttified in holding that the attitude of

the’._petitioner;~fi’v.nise1″”ed divisive te..d.,.n..y i_._t_ending to create

. and hen-fze they were guilty of misconduct which entuned tn

division’ the members of the Parts-ha'”‘t on eectnrL…n 1i….s




it from the post of Member and Adhyaksha of the Taluka

~ .. .I5anchayat.


W.P.1’2061/T2006 C/’W

29. The judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the petitioners do not deal with the issues

Coo… is ..n…ern_d in this case. Reliance p1aced..’oi’1

the report of the Executive Officera of .F’s:nci1ayatA.Was’V»p

not given to the petitioners and there’ wash no opportunity V

provided to the petitioners_, in facts and
circumstances of the caseias-the admitted their
conduct in discussion on the

– which contains the

said “”ei’i””t”and else mange not suppii 1.1. w’_l t, in

any manner, result.” the fight o
Hence there is. no vio1at1r_)n’oi’ any principies of natural justice.

«L tdan1,en fthe A ex Co in the case of Union of
.~::=-.;.’e*a~ -madame F: …”..¢|….-e-…… .-’95.-.-21’… 1… ism so

I-:4-ugnnnn 55-.’

102.7! ar:,;i’iJ;i.1’~”thc case of S.Ic’¢’ai§firqiera ‘v’e. P.uuwu-ur. .%’u…

a hang ems. reported in 1939(2) sec 574 have no application

facts of the present case. Likewise the decisions of the

Aliahabad High Court in the case of President, Municipal Board

Shahiahanpur through Bishan Chandra 7:. District Magistrate,


W.P.12061/2006 C/w


Shahiahanpur reported in A.I.R 1966 Allahabad 369 and the

decision of this Court reported in the of

smereshggyglglcehmi Vs. of Karnataka an _4§.’i:’r.:

£3′! chair”, I

, J..|.I.I.I’\a 4.1. mvavvumno



I-u:nn-I 1-19 Inna cg t__ 1_’____ , ‘F 1;:-,t§:_ ..”‘i1I”E:=3E’I’fi’.

the instant case. The State Goverximefit has a

to firmly deal with the divisivehhyfietis Iiotentialh

danger to our society wiiere ‘the his to foster

unity and cohesion even and other


31. passing the impugned order
is fair “punishment imposed for the illegal

and unauthorised in by the petitioners also

does riot call ufor by this Court. Hence, the writ

devoid of merits, are dismissed.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information