SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Lalitabai W/o Malkanna Patil – Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Karnataka State Election Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 200760 of 2022
Decided On : 20-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.S. Halalli.
For the Respondents: Amresh S. Roja, Krupasagar Patil.

Point of Law : When there is a cause shown in the late filing of the declaration and/or when the declaration is found to be false, would an opportunity of hearing be required to be given.

Headnote:

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 43B - Election - Mogha (K) Gram Panchayat - Disqualified and removed from office - Petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated at Annexure-E under which he was disqualified and removed from office on account of non-compliance with requirements of Section 43B of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Whether a defaulting member of a Gram Panchayat under Section 43B(1) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is required to be issued a show cause notice and be heard before removal from office? There is an opportunity which is required to be given so as to ascertain if there is any falsity and to give an opportunity to the member to show cause as to how the declaration made is correct and not false. [Para 9.10]

Finding of Court : There being a statutory obligation on a member to file a declaration of movable and immovable assets and liabilities of more than two lakhs owned by him/her or members of his/her joint family within two months of assuming office, if same were not to be filed, then question of providing a hearing would not arise - A hearing can only be provided if cause is shown for belated filing - Justification now being sought to be made by learned counsel for petitioner that due to covid pandemic, declaration could not be filed, in Court considered opinion, is not sustainable, inasmuch as petitioner being a member of a Gram Panchayat, cannot claim covid pandemic as an excuse when all elected members and government officials are functioning - When there is no declaration filed at all, furthermore hearing before removal from office would also not be required

Result : Writ Petition stands dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner who was elected to the Mogha (K) Gram Panchayat in the election held on 22.12.2020 and declared on 30.12.2020 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

    (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order in the like nature quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 vide No. Prakarna NO. RA CHU AA/09/GRA PUM. (AA. GOO)/2021 vide Annexure-E passed by 1st respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.

(b) Or pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 at Annexure-E under which he was disqualified and removed from office on account of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 43B of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’).

3. Sri.S.S.Halalli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:

    3.1. since there is no show cause notice or enquiry held before such disqualification the impugned order is required to be set aside.

3.2. the principles of natural justice has not been followed.

3.3. in terms of Section 43B(4), a hearing has to be provided before such declaration is made. In the present case, no such hearing has been provided to the petitioner. There is a violation of Section 43B(4) of the Act.

3.4. Lastly, he submits that the allegation of misconduct under Section 43B(4) of the Act comes under Section 43A of the Act and by relying on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satish K. vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No. 51121/2016 dated 23.11.2017 he submits that there has to be a strong true case of misappropriation or corruption made out against the elected representative to exercise powers under Section 43A of the Act. Only because there are some irregularities, the powers under Section 43A of the Act cannot be exercised.

3.5. Even though there may be delay on part of the petitioner in complying with the requirement of Section 43B of the Act, and the same being curable and the petitioner is always willing to cure the said default and as such, the powers under Section 43B(4) of the Act ought not to have been exercised.

3.6. The filing period being during the time when there was a covid pandemic, the petitioner could not file the declaration. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for may be granted.

4. Sri.Amresh S.Roja, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner not having submitted the returns in terms of Section 43B(1) of the Act, a notice came to be issued on 31.12.2021 which came to be served on the petitioner on 07.01.2022, despite which, there was no reply which was submitted by the petitioner nor were the information furnished. Having waited till 14.02.2022, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, he submits that enough and more opportunity by issuing prior notice was provided to the petitioner who chose not to comply with the statutory requirements under Section 43B of the Act.

5. Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2-Gram Panchayat adopts the submission made by Sri.Amresh S.Roja, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

6. Sri.D.P.Ambekar, counsel who has filed I.A.No. 1/2023 on behalf of Gram Panchayat member to implead himself though wants to make his submission on merits of the matter, I am of the opinion that the applicant in I.A.No. 1/2023 is not a necessary party. Hence, the said application is dismissed.

7. Heard Sri.S.S.Halalli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Amresh S.Roja, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri.Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused papers.

8. The points that would arise for determination in the present matter are:

    (1) Whether a defaulting member of a Gram Panchayat under Section 43B(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is required to be issued a show cause notice and

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top