1. The petitioner Mr.B.N.Krupananda, a member of the Basavanahalli Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a quashing of impugned show cause notice given to him vide Annexure-A dated 01.01.2016 under Section 43A of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1993’) calling upon him to show cause as to why sanction for construction of a Function Hall was issued by him when he was a ‘Adhyaksha’ of said Grama Panchayat during his previous term in the year 2005-10. The petitioner held the office of the ‘Adhyaksha’ of said Grama Panchayat upon being elected in the election to the Grama Panchayat in the year 2005-10 and after a lapse of five years, he was again reelected to the said Grama Panchayat in the elections held in the year 2015 and impugned notice was issued on 01.01.2016 during his second term for alleged misconduct committed by him as ‘Adhyaksha’ of the said Grama Panchayat in his previous tenure in 2005-10.

2. The petitioner instead of filing any reply to the said show cause notice and also the summons issued to him vide Annexure-B on 06.02.2016 by the respondent No.2 to appear before the said authority on 18.02.2016, filed this writ petition before this court.

3. While issuing notice on the said writ petition on 17.02.2016 a Coordinate Bench of this court granted an interim order as prayed for, namely, staying the proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice.

4. The Respondent-State Government has filed its statement of objections on 29.06.2016 and it has been argued on behalf of the State that against show cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable and petitioner should be directed to file his reply to the said show cause notice which is bound to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The reason for issuing the said show cause notice is said to be that in the term 2005-2010 the present petitioner while acting as the ‘Adhyaksha’ of said Grama Panchayat issued a building sanction in favour of one Smt.Feroz Bhanu and on the complaint of one Sri.B.Anjanamurthy, these proceedings were initiated against him by issuing the notice under Section 43-A of the Act, which provides for the removal of members from the Grama Panchayat on certain grounds stated in the said provision, interalia, including the grounds of misconduct and award of contracts to the relatives of the concerned member. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of objections filed by the State are reproduced below for ready reference:

“6. It is submitted that the Director (Suvarna Gramodaya) and IFA has submitted an Inspection Report to the Government, wherein, it has been reported that there is no provision in Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to authorize the ‘Adhyaksha’ of Grama Panchayat to approve the building plan. The petitioner, who is Ex-President of Grama Panchayat during his Chairmanship, had approved the building plan of the function hall. Further, it was reported that he had misused the office during 201015 while he was ‘Adhyaksha’ of the said Grama Panchayat.

7. It is submitted that the Government has sent a Report to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha, wherein it is explained that the action against the Petitioner, the present Member and Ex-President of the Grama Panchayat has been proposed under Sections 43A and 48 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Copy of the Report is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-R4. The Petitioner instead of replying to the Notice, has hastily approached this Hon’ble Court”.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr.A.Nagarajappa has relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this court in the case of Iraganteppa Alias Veeragantappa Vs Hanumanth and others reported in ILR 2003 (3) Kar 3035 and has vehemently submitted that the provisions of Section 43A of the Act are not at all attracted to the present case, as the term of the member to which the alleged incident pertains was ove