SURESH SHIVAPPA MESTA, Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by seeking quashment of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, U.K. District in vide Annexure-J disqualifying the petitioner from the Membership of Honnavar Town Panchayat.

(2.) Brief facts of the petitions are as under: The respondent No.4 herein who presented a complaint as per Sec. 4(1)(b) r/w Sec. 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (for short 'Act') against the petitioner and three others on 22.03.2016 to the Chief Officer of Town Panchayat, Honnavar, by requesting to refer the same to the respondent No.1 being the Deputy Commissioner of Uttara Kannada District. Respondents 2 to 4 have also presented another complaint as per Sec. 4(1)(b) r/w Sec. 3(1)(b) of the Act. It is against the petitioner and three others on 24.10.2016 to the Chief Officer of Pattan Panchayat, Honnavar, by requesting to refer the same to the respondent no.1, a copy of the complaint has been produced as Annexures A and B. The complaint dated 22.04.2010 was numbered as was numbered as as where both the complaints were with respect to the same subject matter alleging that the petitioners and three others have violated the whip issued by the Indian National Congress (for short 'INC'). Respondent No.3 was nominated by the party for the post of President and the respondent No.4 for the post of Vice President. Whereas the respondent served whips on all the councilors of the INC on 08.09.2016 directing to vote in favour of the respondents 3 and 4, as it is the contention taken by them. The allegations made by respondents 2 to 4 in their complaint that, one member namely Jainabee Ismail, in violation of the whip, contested for the post of President and another member, namely, Sharavati w/o Suresh Mesti contested for the post of Vice President. The petitioner and another, namely, Udaya Maruti Nayak, have voted in their favour by violating the whip. Thus, on the aforesaid allegations the respondents 2 to 4 sought for disqualification of the petitioner and other three members, namely, Jainabee Ismail, Sharavati w/o Suresh Mesti and Udaya Maruti Naik. Whereas, on the filing of the complaint by the respondents 2 to 4 that the petitioners and other three members have filed their joint statement of objections to both the complaints and they totally denied the allegations made in their complaint. The copy of the statement of objection filed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and others have jointly produced as Annexures C and D. The petitioners and others have denied the allegations that the INC, Honnavar block, a meeting was held on 08.09.2016 and that they were served with whips. Whereas the respondents 2 to 4 have specifically taken contention that they have created and concocted some documents and duplicated the whip forms with forged signatures with ulterior political motive. This contention was also taken by the petitioner and others who have filed objection to the complaint filed by the respondents 2 to 4.

(3.) It is further contended that the respondent No.2 is not the President of DCC and he has no power to issue valid whip. In substance, the petitioner and others disputed the legality of the alleged whip and also its service on them and notices issued. Whereas the respondent No.1 being the Deputy Commissioner of U.K. District, Karwar, clubbing both the complaints as the complaint related to same subject matter. Evidence was recorded in The case was proceeded as Even the final order passed by the respondent No.1 in the aforesaid case supra as final by the respondent No.1 by clubbing both the complaints.