Dismissed

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2019WP/103762/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought disqualification of the sixth respondent, an elected Zilla Panchayat member, for concealing shareholding in a Co-operative Society. The Court held that such holding is not a ground for disqualification under the relevant Act. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Observation made that shareholding in Co-operative Society is not disqualification.

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.103762/2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.D.F.BABU SAB S/O FAKKURASAB, AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, KRISHNA NAGAR, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SANDUR, R/O: KRISHNANAGAR, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B.SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

A N D :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ELECTION COMMISSION, NO.8, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION BUILDING, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560052.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI, TQ & DIST: BALLARI.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SANDUR -583 119, DIST: BALLARI.

¶15

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SANDUR-583119, DIST: BALLARI.

¶17

HARSHA R.H., S/O H.K.REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST WARD, BHUJANGANAGAR, SANDUR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI A.R.RODRIGUES, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5, TO PASS AN ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFYING THE 6TH RESPONDENT FROM HIS MEMBERSHIP OF ZILLA PANCHYATH, BALLARI, ELECTED FROM NO.16, TARA NAGAR, CONSTITUENCY OF SANDUR TALUK AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

¶23

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Notice is not ordered in respect of respondents 4 to 6.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Petitioner is before this Court praying for issuance

¶26

of a writ of mandamus to respondents 1 to 5 to pass an order of disqualification and thereby disqualify the 6^th respondent from the membership of the Ballari Zilla

¶27

¶28

Panchayat, who stood elected from Ward No.16 of Sandur taluk.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 6^th respondent while filing his nomination had concealed the fact of his holding shares in the Prathamika Krushi Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Bhujanganagar and that in the affidavit while filing the nomination papers, he had specifically stated that he does not hold any shares but on the contrary, the 6^th respondent is holding shares and hence, the said concealment and non-declaration amounts to an offence under the provisions of Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and hence, the petitioner had filed a private complaint registered as PCR No.54/2017 and subsequently, the jurisdictional police have filed a final report and hence, the instant writ petition and the prayer. A interim relief is also made seeking to restrain the 6^th respondent from functioning as the elected member of the Ballari Zilla Panchayat.

¶30

¶31

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that holding of stock or share in any association or in any Co-operative Society is not a ground for disqualification under the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayathraj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and hence, he would submit that the petition is misconceived.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel and having perused clause (d) of the last proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 167 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶33

“(d) a person shall not be deemed to have incurred disqualification under clause (h) by reason of his, -

¶34

i) having a share in any joint stock company or a share or interest in any association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) or in any co-operative society, which shall contract with or be employed by or on behalf of the Zilla Panchayat, or

¶35

ii) having a share or interest in any newspaper in which any advertisement relating to the affairs of the Zilla Panchayat is inserted; or

¶36

¶37

iii) holding a debenture or being otherwise concerned in any loan raised by or on behalf of the Zilla Panchayat.”

¶38

This Court is of the opinion that on mere perusal of the above, it is apparent that holding of a share in a Co-operative Society does not constitute a disqualification. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, petition stands rejected.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn. The said submission of the learned counsel is placed on record. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶40

The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observation made herein above and shall independently consider and dispose off the proceedings.

¶41

(Sd/-) JUDGE

¶42

jm/-

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Uttam S/O Chandrakant Sanadi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Jaiswal (Meerapuraiaya) Vs Sri Chandrashekhar W/O

Anita W/O Kandi Hemaraddi Vs Sajjanna Ganigera

Shri.Rayazahmed S/O Hazarathsab Sharif Vs Enquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer

Nandini D/O. Late Krishnakumar Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri.D.F.Babu Sab S/O Fakkurasab Vs the State of Karnataka