Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (KALABURAGI BENCH)
Nataraj Rangaswamy, J.
Shantkumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 226072 of 2020, 226073 of 2020
Decided On : 30-07-2020
Hanmanthraya Sindhol, Advocate, Shivakumar R Tengli, Advocate, Prashanth S Kumman, Advocate, Ravi B Patil, Advocate, J.K. Bukka, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Amendment Ordinance of 2020 did not have retrospective effect and applied only to panchayats whose terms had expired but elections were not yet held.
Headnote:
Term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha - Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 - Section 46 - Amendment Ordinance of 2020 - [REDUCTION OF TERM, APPLICABILITY OF AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the reduction of the term of the office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayats in the State of Karnataka from five years to thirty months by the Amendment Ordinance of 2020. They sought a writ in the nature of quo-warranto to remove the incumbents and a mandamus to hold elections. The respondents contended that the Amendment Ordinance could not retrospectively reduce their term and relied on constitutional provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioners' claims, finding that the Amendment Ordinance of 2020 did not apply retrospectively to reduce the term of office of the incumbents. It held that the Amendment Ordinance applied only to panchayats whose terms had expired but elections were not yet held. The court dismissed the writ petitions, citing precedent judgments and the constitutional provisions.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Amendment Ordinance of 2020 to reduce the term of office, the constitutional validity of the reduction, and the entitlement of the petitioners to challenge the incumbents' continuation in office.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Amendment Ordinance of 2020, the constitutional provisions under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, and precedent judgments. It held that the Amendment Ordinance did not have retrospective effect and applied only to panchayats whose terms had expired but elections were not yet held.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the Amendment Ordinance of 2020 did not retrospectively reduce the term of office of the incumbents and that the petitioners lacked merit.
JUDGMENT
Nataraj Rangaswamy, J. - The case as set out in the writ petition is that the term of the office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayats in the State of Karnataka which was five years by virtue of Section 46 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 was reduced to thirty months in terms of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (for short 'Amendment Ordinance of 2020') with effect from 31.03.2020.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.6 and 7 were elected as the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha at the first meeting of the Respondent No.5 on 23.10.2017. Thus he claimed that in view of the Amendment Ordinance of 2020, the term of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of respondent No.5 expired during April 2020 and that thus they were not entitled to continue as the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the respondent No.5. The petitioners claim that though the term of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha came to an end, yet, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had not taken any steps to hold elections to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of respondent No.5. The petitioners submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 in this regard and the respondent No.4 had issued an endorsement dated 16.06.2020 (Annexure- D) rejecting the representation of the petitioners on the ground that under Section 46 of the Act of 1993 the term of office of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha was five years. The respondent No.4 thereafter suo-motu reviewed his earlier order dated 16.06.2020 and issued a notice dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure-F) stating that he was under a misconception that the term of office of Adyaksha and Upadyaksha was five years as per Section 46 and that he had not noticed the Amendment Ordinance of 2020 which had reduced the term to 30 months. Thus the respondent No.4 withdrew his earlier Order dated 16.06.2020. The respondent No.4 informed the petitioners that based on the representation of the petitioners, the respondent No.4 had corresponded with the respondent No.3 for suitable action. The petitioners contended that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were hand in glove with the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in not holding the elections and that thus the petitioners were advised to present this petition challenging the Order dated 26.6.2020 and also for a Writ in the nature of quo-warranto to remove respondent Nos.6 and 7 from the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of respondent No.5 and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to hold elections to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
3. The learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record an acknowledgement by which notice of the writ petitions was served on Gram Panchayat Ashtoor (Respondent No.5). Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are represented. The standing counsel for the respondent No.5 is permitted to file his memo of appearance.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate though has not filed the statement of objections, has contended that under Article 243-E of the Constitution of India, the term of the gram panchayat is five years and therefore, these writ petitions seeking for a relief of quowarranto challenging the office held by respondent Nos.6 and 7 is not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that respondent Nos.6 and 7 were elected as Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the respondent No.5 for a term of five years at the first meeting held on 23.10.2017. He therefore contends that Amendment Ordinance of 2020 which came into effect on 31.03.2020 could not invalidate or have the effect of reducing the term from five years to thirty months. He contends that Amendment Ordinance of 2020 would be applicable in respect of the panchayats where term of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha have expired and not in respect of respondent Nos.6 and 7 whose term is not
