K V MANJULA Vs. PRESCRIBED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the elected members of Mudiyanooru Grama Panchayat, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District. Post of Adhyaksha of the Panchayat has fallen vacant, owing to the resignation of the earlier Adhyaksha. Said post has been reserved for a Woman member belonging to Scheduled Caste community. The Prescribed Officer issued meeting notice under Rule 4 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules') and calendar of events, on 20.01.2014, fixing the date of election as 30.01.2014. Smt. K.V.Manjula, petitioner in WP.No.7197/2014, alone filed her nomination form, as per Rule 5, which upon scrutiny, as per Rule 7, was found to be in order and was not withdrawn in terms of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 7. Out of the 15 members of the Panchayat, only 5 members having assembled and there being 10 absentees, the Prescribed Officer adjourned the meeting, for want of quorum, by making a reference to the provision under Section 53(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). The Prescribed Officer gave notice dated 07.02.2014, fixing the date of election for the post of Adhyaksha as 17.02.2014. The calendar of events was notified therein. Assailing the said notice, W.P.No.7197/2014 was filed by Smt. K.V.Manjula. The Prescribed Officer having subsequently given a notice dated 11.02.2014, to the effect that the proceedings dated 30.01.2014 be excluded and other proceedings would be gone ahead with, on the date stipulated for election i.e., on 17.02.2014, feeling aggrieved, 11 other members of the Panchayat filed W.P.Nos.8076-86/2014, to quash the notice dated 11.02.2014 and to direct the Prescribed Officer to conduct election to the post of Adhyaksha of the Panchayat, according to the calendar of events issued on 07.02.2014.

(2.) Sri Reuben Jacob, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7197/2014, contended that the action of the Prescribed Officer in notifying the fresh calendar of events in respect of an adjourned meeting to hold the election to fill the casual vacancy in the Office of the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat is arbitrary and illegal. He submitted that there is complete lack of application of mind on the part of the Prescribed Officer and hence, interference is called for.

(3.) Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.8076-86/2014, on the other hand, contended that the meeting fixed on 30.01.2014 having been adjourned for want of quorum and subsequently, the election date having been fixed as 17.02.2014 by announcing the calendar of events and the election process having been set in motion, the notice issued on 11.02.2014 to the effect that the proceedings of 30.01.2014 are to be excluded and the other proceedings would be continued is vague, cryptic and being for undisclosed reasons and being without jurisdiction, interference is called for. He submitted that the Prescribed Officer has misconstrued the scope of S.53 of the Act and the statutory mandate and that the procedure prescribed in the matter of conducting of election to the vacant post of Adhyaksha having not been followed, interference as prayed in W.P.Nos.8076-8086/2014 is called for.