The petitioner, Smt.Palakshamma, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Karnataka State Election Commission, whereby, the learned Commissioner has disqualified the petitioner as Panchyath Member of the Davangere Taluk Panchayath.

2. It is the case of petitioner that she was elected as Taluk Panchayth Member of Davangere Taluk Panchayath. However, on 12.11.2013, one Sri.Chinnasamudra Shekar Naik filed a complaint against her before the Election Commission wherein, he has alleged that ever since the petitioner has become a member of the said Gram Panchayath, her husband, G.N.Sangappa, and her brother, H.B.Shivamurthy are repeatedly being given contracts for carrying out works under the Panchayath. Therefore, she should be disqualified under Section 128 (1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’, for short).

3. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did appear before the Election Commissioner, and filed her reply to the application. In her reply, she has pleaded that her husband G.N.Sangappa has been a Class-I PWD Contractor since 1987. Neither he, nor she have misused their position in order to unduly favour her husband in the work contracts granted by the Taluk Panchayath. Similarly, she pleaded that her brother, H.B.Shivamurthy has been a contractor since 2005. And no favour has been shown towards Mr.H.B.Shivamurthy while Taluk Panchayath granted him some contract. In fact, the complainant (respondent No.2) happened to her husband’s friend; they were partners in the contract work. But because differences had arisen between the two, the respondent No.2 had filed a false complaint against her.

4. During the course of the proceedings, respondent no.2 was examined as PW.1, and he was cross-examined by the petitioner. Eventually, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 13.02.2015, the respondent no.1 has disqualified the petitioner in terms of Section 129 (2) of the Act. Hence, this petition before this court.

5. Mr.M.Aswathnarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently contended that Section 128 of the Act deals with disqualification of members. If the member has directly any share or interest in any work done by order of the Taluk Panchayath or in any contract or employment with or under or by or on behalf of the Taluk Panchayath, or if he is either directly or indirectly by himself or by his agent or partner or employee involved in obtaining or execution of any such work or contract on behalf of the Taluk Panchayth or of any contract for the supply of any goods and services to the Taluk Panchayath.

According to the learned counsel, the husband does not fall in any of the categories of ‘agent’, ‘partner’ or an ‘employee’. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been disqualified under Section 128 (1) of the Act.

Secondly, Section 129 (2) of the Act stipulates that in case a report is made to the State Election Commission, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the member concerned, the State Election Commission shall declare whether the seat of the member concerned is or has become vacant. However, no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner.

Thirdly the Election Commissioner has not applied his mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is a non-speaking one; it is liable to be set aside.

6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

7. Section 128 of the Act reads as hereunder:

128. Disqualification for members.(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being member of a Taluk Panchayat,

(a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of the elections to the State Legislature:

Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years, if he has attained the age of twentyone years;

(b) if he is disqualified under the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 19