IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD H
DATED THES THE 26th DAY cF"MARr;H--.¢2oo§A :" V
PRESENT __ V _
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1 c§E: _AJ{'IA'. J..GU3.\iq 1§L '
I AND_..._ ' _ '
THE HONBLE r§4r2;.ViJuSfif1c:.'s;:V;j;h;aa(Ajp"RAHIM
WRIT APPE_AL Neaéss
BETWEEN:
1. '._sR_z ¥ELLA1f-Sm BA_SA_'_\?AN§ TASHILDAR
'AG}:".1._;):' MA;IGR;' .Q<cr:.: AGRICULTURE
MEMBER;'i'iiLU,K"'PANCHAYAT
RES'E«DE'NT oF'~MUr;:HANDx, TALUK
' " 3ELGm.f.,M"ms'I*RIcT
.2: . 3éR;"MARUTi'Hi$ARsHURAM KUGJI
~AuE',i:) 43 YEARS, occ: AGRICULTURE
' VVPRESIDENT TALUK PANCHAYAT
BE--E;_GA.UM
RID YALLUR, TALUK 35 DISTRICT
.. BELGAUM APPELLANTS
{BY SR1. CHANDRAKANT1-I R GOULAY ADV.,)
AND
STATE OF KAR NATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY r M '
DEPARTMENT 01:' RURAL DEVELOPMENT 85 * e " V
PANCHAYAT RAJ ' "
M.S.BUILlZ)ING e V
BANGALORE--S6O 901 ' R3sP0Nm_Em?
(BY SR1. K B ADHYAPAK}..A;G.A.) " --
THIS APPEAL '_ '~-FILED _ 'u._1s,}"~~.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH c0m2'1f AC1', ; 1951, 'PRAY1NG TO
SET ASIDE THE 0RE)ER'- DT.','1'273,;~2<)~a3. PASSEI) IN
W. P. NC). 1 1949f'2006 KNB-W,P;NO.119SO'f2006.
*rHI'se..,":?wRfi?"- A5?PEAL"""'::oMING ON FOR
PREL1'..MIAb¥RY-"HEARING""THIS my, AJIT J mmaan
J., DEVLJVEEREE) FQI;E,()}.i.'IN(}:
~ .gm:)GEMEN'r
" This appeai is by the petitioners in
'V zvx;i£'pi-gtition. Pursuant to the order by respondent
gietifionem who are the Member and
Adhya]:si1駫:””Ahave been disqualified. The
was questioned before the learned
-.. s’in§ie Judge. The learned single Judge has recorded a
finding that the misconduct is proved and the
is fair and reasonable. Hence confirmed the–‘oi’dexge”
the removal. e
2. Mr.
counsel appearing for the
there is clear violation the ‘as muejé. the
provisions of See. 141 (3) V
u ‘ ‘the order passed by the
authority and also the order
o£._§§:}§e =1ean1ed.._ ei11g1e Judge. We must make an
.A ‘ob’:ser§}a{tio;:§’tVhat this is an intxa Court appea} and We
aymllate authority over the order of
leérned .s;’1;fi§gie Judge. We are onky having a second
A. look on second look We am of the View that the
‘ ‘-eoxder passed by the learned single Judge cannot be
-Vifaulted. Indeeé, the State Government has found that fl
/
%
the subject matter relating to transfer of is
the State of Maharastra was not
ordinaxy meeting of the A’ To-A
Nevertheless a proposal the
that the Khanapur Show bée—–t.oé.”1:1sii:4xi’1.ved.’to -the skate
of Maharastra. Be “ii; figquiry was
conducted atjgd Was; “t t.ae absence
of an sought to be
move{3,. _ ”
4. “I13 5;;-2» fat asfthfie enquiry is concerned, the
Ieagéfoed. six1g1e~._:{J:1V1’£ige has found. that it is fair and
is What the learned single Judge has
“‘I’h.e pIo(:edure followed whiie
passing the imyugaed order is fair
and reasonable. The punishment
ixngaosed for the illegai and
unauthorised activities indulged in by
the petitioners also does not call for
interfezrence by this Court.”
5. Having perused the Q1’dér”of_ 1:’11e_:
single Judge, We are of thg
opinion can be taken
learned single Judge.
Sd/’4
Iudge
.. ….. .. judge