The judgment emphasizes the discretionary nature of quo-warranto, the statutory right to contest elections, and the availability of alternative efficacious remedies under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act.

R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) INVOKING writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the respondents prayed for the issuance of writ of quo-warranto against appellants restraining them from functioning as the Adhyaksha of the Shimoga District Zilla Panchayath and Kulugatte gram Panchayath. Writ Petitions were allowed vide orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which have been impugned in these appeals. As the questions of law involved are common, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) WRIT petitioners in W. P. Nos. 12797/97 c/w W. P. Nos. 12386; 12723; 12757-60; and 12607/1997 are the residents of Zillia Panchayat, Shimoga. They submitted that Shimoga district Zilla Panchayat comprised of 41 elected members from the specified constituencies in the district of Shimoga. Out of the said 41 elected members, 8 belong to the Scheduled Castes including 3 women members elected for the Constituencies reserved for the Schedule Caste women. Two seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribe including one for Scheduled Tribe women. Reservation was also alleged to have been provided for the office of Adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat. It was alleged that vide amended Section 177 of the karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, the term of the office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is restricted to 20 months from the date of election. Pursuant to the amended provisions the State government was alleged to have passed an order bearing No. RDP. 315 ZPS. 96 dated 7. 3. 1997 reserving the office of the Adhyaksha to the Scheduled Castes and the Upadhyaksha to the women. Out of 8 members who belonged to Scheduled Castes in the Zilla Panchayath Shimoga, only five members were elected from the Constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and other three Scheduled Caste members included in the category were elected from the constituencies reserved for Scheduled Caste women. The Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore, issued a meeting notice dated 20. 3. 97 convening the Meeting of the Zilla Panchayath for the election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. It was submitted that according to the Government notification only members elected from the Constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes were entitled to contest for the office of Adhyaksha. The appellant was alleged to be not belonging to that category as she was elected from the category of Scheduled Caste women. The divisional Commissioner, however, permitted the appellant to contest the election. She was declared elected as President of the Zilla Panchayat and thereafter resumed the office. It was alleged the appellant being a usurper of public office was not eligible to hold the office of the adhyaksha.

( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 1999/97, the election of the appellant was challenged by the other elected members of Kulugatte Grama Panchayath on almost similar grounds. It was submitted that the post of Adhyaksha of Kulugatte Grama Panchayat was reserved for Scheduled Caste women as per notification issued by State Government but the appellant was elected on the ground that she belong to Scheduled Tribe. It was submitted that as the appellant had been elected from the general Constituency for women, she had no right to contest the election to the post of adhyaksha which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Women.

( 4 ) WRIT Petitions were allowed vide the orders impugned in these appeals and the appellants were restrained from acting as Adhyaksha of the Panchayaths to which they were elected. The orders of the learned Single Judge are alleged to be against the provisions of law and contrary to the pronouncements made by the Apex Court and various High Courts.

( 5 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution and Rule-7 of the Rules framed under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, the writ Petitions were not maintainable. Article 243-O of the Constitution provides: " (a) the validity

Click Here to Read the rest of this document