IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3929 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI D. RAVI SON OF DORAIRAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MEMBER ALLAMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
2. SMT. BABY WIFE OF KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER ALLAMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
3. SRI PRADEEP SON OF BORAIAH N AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER ALLAMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
4. SRI B.P. HALESH SON OF PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER MEMBER ALLAMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PAVITHRA N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR/INCHARGE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ MULTISTOREYED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
5. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ALLAMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEALS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 22.10.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NOS.21533-21540 OF 2019 ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.21533 to 21540 of 2019, in vacating the exparte order of stay and holding that all further proceedings initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein are subject to the final orders to be passed therein, petitioner Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 therein have filed this appeal. The remaining petitioners have not challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The case of the writ petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is the President and petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are the Members of Allampura Grama Panchayat, Chikkamagaluru District. Pursuant to the enquiry, in exercise of the powers under Sections-43A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the petitioners were removed from the post of the President as well as from the Membership of the Grama Panchayat.
3. The said order was challenged in the instant writ petition, wherein an exparte order of stay was granted. Thereafter, an application being moved by respondent No.1, by the impugned order the exparte order of stay was vacated. It was held that all further proceedings will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that there were serious allegations against the petitioners. That petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 have obtained cheques in the names of their spouses and have remitted the amount to their accounts. That the said remittance was towards the work stated to have been done relating to the Grama Panchayat.
4. On considering the contentions, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the action of the respondents cannot be found fault with. That the petitioners have been removed after duly conducting an enquiry in accordance with law. Therefore, the veracity of the finding in the enquiry has to be considered at the stage of final hearing. That in view of the admitted facts, the exparte order of stay requires to be set-aside.
5. Yet another contention being advanced by the appellants is that they have sought for a mandamus to strike down Section-43-A of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj And Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (‘Act’ for short) as unconstitutional, void and non-est. Therefore, when the constitutional validity is challenged, an interim order is required.
6. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that the same cannot be accepted. The writ petition was filed questioning the order of removal of the petitioners therein. There was no prayer to strike down Section-43A of the Act. The same was thereafter sought for by filing I.A.No.3 of 2019, seeking amendment. Therefore, along with the impugned order, the amendment was also allowed. Therefore, that also requires to be considered.
7. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge having considered the entire material on merit has passed the aforesaid order. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. We respectfully agree with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge while vacating the interim order of stay. Hence, we find no good ground to entertain the appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-