Allowed

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2021WP/100917/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an election notification issued by the State Election Commission for the Yamanoor Grama Panchayat. The Court held that the Panchayat was not duly constituted as fewer than two-thirds of members were elected due to a boycott, meaning the members' term had not commenced, and the notification was illegal.

What did the court decide?

The notification dated 08.03.2021 issued by the State Election Commission to hold an election to the petitioners' constituency in Yamanoor Grama Panchayat is quashed.

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.100917/2021 (LB-ELE)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Sri. Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri, Age : 30 years, R/o Tirlapur Road, Yamanoor, Navalagund Taluk, Ballari : Dharwad-582208.

¶10

Doddahasansab Sa.H S/o Hasansab Yaligar, Age : 38 years, R/o Darga Oni, Yamanoor, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208.

¶11

Smt. Savita Siddalingesh Sharanadagouda, Age : 38 years, R/o Goudar Oni, Yamanoor, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208.

¶12

Rajaram S/o Dondiba Mohite, Age : 52 years, R/o Marata Oni, Yamanoor, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208.

¶13

Rukmavva Venkareddi Karakareddi, Age : 58 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Yamanoor, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 6. Neelavva Venkappa Sanjeevannavar, Age : 55 years, R/o Barker Oni, Yamanoor, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208.

¶14

Somappa Nagappa Totad, Age : 46 years,

¶15

¶16

R/o Gramadevate Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 8. Mahantesh Yallappa Gunnar, Age : 54 years, R/o Kere Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 9. Madhu W/o Yella Reddy, Age : 34 years, R/o Matada Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 10. Renavva W/o Kariyappa Turamari, Age : 55 years, R/o Basaveshwara Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 11. Hanamappa S/o Bhimappa Kali, Age : 52 years, R/o Kali Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 12. Annapurna W/o Ramanagouda Patil, Age : 47 years, R/o Hanumanth Devara Oni, Padesur, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 13. Mahantesh S/o Andanayya Kulkarni, Age : 40 years, R/o Kumaragoppa, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. 14. Shantavva Bhimappa Talawar, Age : 38 years, R/o Komaragoppa, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. .. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY & SMT. DEEPA UDIYAR, ADVS.)

¶17

AND :

¶18

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Rural Development And Panchayath Raj,

¶19

¶20

M.S.Building, Bengalooru-560001.

¶21

The State Election Commission, Karnataka, Karnataka State Cooperative Federation Building, First Floor, No.8, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru 52-560001. By its Chief Election Commissioner. Represented by its under Secretary.

¶22

The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad-580001.

¶23

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath,Dharwad, District : Dharwad-580001.

¶24

Yamanoor Grama Panchayath, Navalgund Taluk, District : Dharwad-582208. By its Panchayath Development Officer.

¶25

Administrator, Yamanoor Grama Panchayath, Navalgund Taluk, Dharwad. District : Dharwad-582208.

¶26

Sri. Hemaraddi, S/o Nagaraddi Lingaraddi Age 52 yrs, occ: Agriculture R/at Yamanur village, Navalgund taluka Dist. Dharwad.

¶27

.. RESPONDENTS (BY Smt. VIDYAVATI K. KOTTURSHETTAR, AAG AND SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 AND R3 SRI. S. RAJASHEKHAR, ADV. FOR R2. SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6 SRI. C.S. PATIL AND SRI UMESH P.H ADVS. FOR R7.)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.3.21 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING OF THE ELECTION TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF 5^TH RESPONDENT YAMANOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT IS CONCERNED MENTIONED AT SL.NO.19. FURTHER DIRECTION

¶29

¶30

MAY KINDLY BE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THE MEETING OF THE EXISTING MEMBERS OF YAMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO ELECT FROM AMONGST THEMSELVES TO THE POST OF ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA AND ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO WORK AS THE MEMBERS OF THE YAMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND DIRECTING TO HOLD THE RE-ELECTION TO THE UNFILLED 8 MEMBERS SEAT OF AREKURAHATTI VILLAGE.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the notification dated 08.03.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent/Election Commissioner vide Annexure-A to hold election to the 5^th respondent Panchayath.

¶34

The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners are elected as the members of Yamanoor Grama Panchayath in the general election held on 04.04.2016. Pursuant to that, the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, by Notification dated 17.06.2016 has declared that the petitioners are the duly elected members of the said Grama Panchayath. In fact, the total strength of the Grama Panchayath is 22. The said Grama Panchayath consists of 4 villages namely Yamanoor, Padesur, Kumaragoppa and Arekurahatti. 6 members are required to be elected from Yamanoor constituency, 6

¶35

¶36

members from Padesuru constituency, 2 members from Kumaragoppa constituency and 8 members from Arekurahatti constituency. The villagers of Aekurahatti village have boycotted the election. No election was held for 8 constituency in Arekurahatti village. The total strength of Yamanoor Grama Panchayath is 22. Out of 22, the elected members are 14. As per the provision of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short), to constitute a panchayat, 2/3^rd members are required. Since 2/3 members are not elected, Panchayat is not constituted and no meeting is held. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has appointed an Administrator. Even though the Election Commissioner has made an effort to hold elections to Arekurahatti village for seven times, the villagers of Arekurahatti have boycotted the election and no election has been held. The term of the petitioners is not completed in spite of that, the impugned notification has been issued to conduct an election to Yamanoor Grama Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶37

¶38

Sri. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are duly elected members of 5^th respondent Gram Panchayat in the election held on 04.04.2016 and they have been declared as elected members by the Deputy Commissioner by notification dated 17.06.2017. He contended that as per Section 5(7) of the Act, only, if, 2/3^rd members of the total number of members of any Grama Panchayat have been elected, the Grama Panchayat can be deemed to be constituted under this Act. Since out of 22 members, only 14 members are elected, it does not constitute 2/3^rd members as required and hence, there is no constitution of Grama Panchayat. He further contended that, as per Section 41 of the Act, the term of the Grama Panchayat is for a period of 5 years and as per Section 42 of the Act, the term of the office of the members elected at a general election or at a second election, shall commence on the date appointed for the 1^st meeting of the Grama Panchayat. Since Panchayat is not constituted, no meeting is held and their term is not commenced. Since they have not completed 5 years term, the impugned notification issued to conduct election to their constituency is illegal and without

¶39

¶40

authority of law. He further contended that out of 22 members only 14 members have been elected. To constitute a Panchayat, 2/3 of the total members of the Gram Panchayat is required. As 14 members have been elected, 2/3^rd requires 14.66. Hence it has to be rounded off to 14 and the respondent could have constituted a Panchayat. He further contended that, as per Section 8 of the Act that, if 2/3^rd members is not elected to form a Panchayat, the Deputy Commissioner has the power to appoint an Administrator. In the case on hand, no Administrator has been appointed after the election. The Administrator, who had been appointed before the election, is continued. The same is without authority of law. Therefore, he sought or allowing the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, Smt. Vidyavathi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1-State has contended that as per Section 5(7) of the Act, to constitute a Panchayat, 2/3^rd of the total number of members of the panchayat is required. In this case, out of 22 members, 14 members have been elected. 2/3^rd would be 14.66% and that “.6%” has to be considered as “1” which when added to 14

¶42

¶43

would be 15. Since there is shortage of 1 member, the Authority could not constitute the Panchayat. Therefore, they have invoked the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act and an Administrator has been appointed. Though the Election Commissioner made an effort to conduct election to Arekurahatti village, the villagers have boycotted the election even for 7^th time also. Even after the Government making all efforts, they failed to conduct election to Arekurahatti village. Since 5 years term is over, the Election Commissioner has rightly issued the notification for conducting election to the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶44

Sri. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Election Commissioner, has contended that out of 22 members, if 2/3^rd members has to be elected for constituting the Panchayat, 15 members have to be elected. Here only 14 members have been elected. If 2/3^rd of he total members is converted it would be 14.6%. Even fraction has to be considered as ‘1’. In support of his contention he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule v. Tahsildar, Sinnar and others reported in (2019) 3 SCC 211 . He further contended that the

¶45

¶46

Election Commissioner has issued the Notification for the 7^th time for conducting election to Arekurahatti village but the villagers have boycotted the election. Since the petitioners have completed 5 years term, the Election Commissioner has issued a notification for conducting election to 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat. He further contended that pursuant to appointment of an Administrator, the petitioners are ceased to be the members of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, they are no more the members of the Grama Panchayat. Hence, the Election Commissioner has rightly issued the notification to hold election to the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶47

Sri. C.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent has contended that the petitioners are elected as members of Grama Panchayat. They are attending Grama Panchayat sabha. Since, they are discharging their duty as a member for 5 years, their term is completed. He further contended that under Section 268 of the Act, when the Grama Panchayat is not competent to perform the duties, on the recommendation of the Taluk Panchayat, the Zilla Panchayat can dissolve the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, he contended that the Zilla Panchayat can exercise the power under Section

¶48

¶49

268 of the Act to dissolve the Panchayat and they can hold election.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶51

perused the writ papers.

¶52

Detail narration of the facts and contentions would

¶53

not call for reiteration.

¶54

The 5^th respondent Yamanoor Grama Panchayat has 22 members. General Election for the Grama Panchayat were held on 4.4.2016. The petitioners were duly elected in the said election. The Election Officer issued a declaration in this regard on 17.6.2016. However, as regarding ‘8’ constituencies from Arekurahatti, as the entire village boycotted the election, out of 22 members only 14 members were declared as members of 5^th respondent panchayat.

¶55

Firstly, I will examine the provisions of the Act. The State Legislature has enacted the law called Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panhayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983. The Government by replacing the said Act, has enacted the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 with an object to establish three-tier Panchayat Raj

¶56

¶57

System in the State with the elected bodies at Grama, Taluk and District levels for greater participation of the people and more effective implementation of rural developed programme in the State.

¶58

Section 2 of the Act deals with Definitions.

¶59

Section 2(15) of the Act defines Grama Panchayat as under:

¶60

“ 2(15) “ Grama Panchayat ” means the Grama panchayat established under this Act.”

¶61

Chapter III deals with Constitution of Grama Panchayat and Standing Committees . Section 5 of the Act provides for ‘Constitution of Grama Panchayat’. For better understanding Section 5(7) of the Act is extracted below:

¶62

“ 5. Constitution of Grama Panchayat.-

¶63

(7) “notwithstanding anything contained under subsections (1) and (6), but subject to any general or special orders of the Government, where two-thirds of the total number of members of any Grama Panchayat have been elected, the Grama Panchayat shall be deemed to have been duly constituted under this Act.”

¶64

It is very clear from the above provisions that, if 2/3^rd of the total number of member of Grama Panchayat

¶65

¶66

have been elected, then only Grama Panchayat is deemed to have been constituted.

¶67

In the case on hand, out of 22 members of Grama Panchayat, 14 members have been elected. In respect of 8 members, the villagers have boycotted the election and no election has been held. 2/3^rd of 22 members is 14.6%. If consideration of fraction in respect of a person concerned, it has to be considered as ‘1’. Since it is 14.6%, to constitute a Panchayat, it requires 15 elected members. The Apex Court in the case of Ganesh (supra) at paragraphs 11 and 12 has held as under:

¶68

“11. In the present case statute, Section 35(3) refers to majority as “a majority of not less than twothird of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchyat.” The above expression clearly indicates the majority of not less than two-third of the “total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote.” The key words in the expression are members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at a meeting in the Panchayat. The computation of majority thus refers to “entitlement to sit and vote at any meeting”. Thus, the number of members who are entitled to sit and vote in a meeting have to be taken into consideration for computing the majority. Total number of members being nine and one member being disqualified to sit and vote, the computation of majority has to be on the basis of number eight, two-third of the number eight will be 5.33. The submission of the respondent is that the two-third majority has to be computed out of the members present and voting i.e. seven excluding one

¶69

¶70

member who was unqualified to vote and five is more than two-third of seven, the majority has been rightly passed. The interpretation put by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted in view of the clear language of statute. The crucial words in the statute are members “who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote”. This expression cannot be treated to be expression “members present and voting”. The submission of the respondent that for computation of majority, number of seven members should be treated, cannot be accepted.

¶71

12. The next submission pressed by the respondent is that for applying the principle of rounding off 5.33 votes have to be rounded as to five. Thus, five votes are sufficient to accept majority for the purpose of passing no-confidence motion. Whether 5.33 votes can be rounded up into 5 votes or requirement is at least six votes is the real issue. When there are clear words in the statute i.e. “not less than two-third of the total number of members”, applying the principle of rounding off, 5.33 votes cannot be treated as 5. vote of a person cannot be expressed in fraction. When computation of a majority comes with fraction of a vote that fraction has to be treated as one vote, because votes cannot be expressed in fraction. The principle that figure less than .5 is to be ignored and figure more than .5 shall be treaded as one, is not applicable in the statutory scheme as delineated by Section 35. Provision of Section 35(1) which provides for requirement for moving motion of no confidence by not less than onethird of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, is the same expression as used in sub-section (3). Obviously, requirement of not less than one-third number for moving motion has to be computed from total number of the members who are entitled to sit and vote. Thus, the same expression having been used in sub-section (3) of Section 35, both the expressions have to be given the same meaning. Thus, one-third of total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote have to be determined on the strength of members entitled to vote at a particular time. The same meaning has also to be applied while computing two-third majority.”

¶72

¶73

It is very clear from the aforesaid judgment that fraction in respect of a person is to be considered as ‘1’. Therefore, to constitute Yamanoor Grama Panchayat, it requires 15 members to be elected. But in this case, only 14 members have been elected. There is no duly constituted Grama Panchayat as per Section 5(7) of the Act. Since, the Panchayat is not duly constituted, the only remedy left for the Government was to appoint an Administrator under Section 8 of the Act. Even though the Government has not appointed any Administrator after the election but the Administrator, who was appointed before the Election, has been continued and he is administering the Panchayat. Since the Panchayat is not duly constituted, no meeting has been conducted.

¶74

The petitioners are elected as the members of 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat for a term of 5 years fixed under Section 41 of the Act which reads as under:

¶75

“ 41. Term of Office .- the members of a Grama Panchayat shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, hold office for a term of five years.”

¶76

This section is enacted in terms of amendment of Article 243E of the Constitution of India. Article 243E reads as follows:

¶77

¶78

“ 243E. Duration of Panchayats, etc .—

¶79

(1) Every Panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer.

¶80

(2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment, till the expiration of its duration specified in clause (1).

¶81

(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed—

¶82

(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1);

¶83

(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution:

¶84

Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this clause for constituting the Panchayat for such period.

¶85

(4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would have continued under clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.”

¶86

The language of Article 243E of the Constituion of

¶87

India and Section 41 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that under any circumstance, tenure of the elected body of the Grama Panchayat cannot be more than 5 years. This becomes apparent by the expression and no longer employed

¶88

¶89

by the said Article. Therefore, it is very clear from the above provision that the term of the members of the Grama panchayat will commence from the holding of its 1^st meeting. In this case, since 2/3^rd members have not been elected, 1^st meting of the panchayat has not been conducted. Therefore, the term of the members of the Gram Panchayat is not commenced.

¶90

The contention of the respondent is that as per Section 8(3) of the Act, once an Administrator is appointed to the Grama Panchayat, a person, if any, chosen as members of the Grama Panchayat before such appointment shall cease to be member of the Grama panchayat and therefore, they are no longer a member. The Election Commissioner has the power to issue a notification for conducting the election. For better understanding Section 8(3) of the Act is extracted as under:

¶91

“ 8. Appointment of an Administrative Committee or Administrator on failure to elect members of Grama Panchayats.-

¶92

(1) & (2). xxxx

¶93

(3) On the appointment of an Administrative Committee or an Administrator under sub-section (1), the persons if any, chosen as members of the Grama Panchayat before such appointment shall cease to be

¶94

¶95

members of the Grama Panchayat and all the powers and duties of the Grama Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by such Administrative Committee or Administrator.”

¶96

This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Shankarappa and Another v. State of Karnataka by its Secretary and others reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4303 wherein

¶97

at paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held as under:

¶98

“ 12. The question that falls for consideration is the fate of the elected members of the Grama Panchayat for which Administrator is appointed or an Administrative Committee is appointed under Section 8(1)(b). The expression in Sub-clause (3) of Section 8 stating that upon the appointment of the Administrator or the Administrative Committee by the Deputy Commissioner, the persons who were chosen as members of the Grama Panchayat earlier to such appointment shall cease to be members of the Grama Panchayat and all powers and duties of the Panchayat shall be exercised and performed by the Administrative Committee or the Administrator has to be understood keeping in mind the provisions contained in Sub-clause (6) of Section 5. Both these provisions have to be harmoniously construed. If it is held that all the 10 elected members, in the instant case, cease to be the members of the Grama Panchayat and that they automatically vacate their membership then the intendment of Page 1013 the legislature spelt out in Subclause (6) of Section 5 in directing that within one month from the date on which the names of the elected members are published, the Deputy Commissioner shall have to arrange another election for election of such number of members as will make up the required number of members of the Panchayat would get negated. Moreover, if that were to be the intendment then the legislature would have made it explicit in Section 8, the consequence to follow and would have mandated in explicit terms that elections have to be held to the entire body of the Grama Panchayat consisting of the total

¶99

¶100

number of members. Such a declaration is not made in the provisions contained under Section 8. On the other hand Sub-section (6) of Section 5 specifically provides without enacting any restriction that for the remaining number of members for which no candidate is elected fresh election has to be held within one month. If the legislature had intended that only if the minimum of 2/3rd members are returned and for some reason the remaining members are not elected then reelection as contemplated under Section 6 is permissible and not otherwise the same would have been enacted in the provision. This cannot be read into these provisions presuming that there is an omission in this regard.

¶101

13. Looked from another angle also, that is to say from the point of view of the voters who have voted in the election and the persons who have got elected in a democratically held election, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to frustrate the process by annulling their elections for no fault on their part. It may also be useful to state here that for various reasons voters in a particular place may resort to boycotting the election process. If the result of such undemocratic act on the part of any section of the society were to render the other elected members lose their membership then it would definitely appear to be illogical and irrational. Such an effect the legislature has not intended to achieve while enacting these provisions under Section 5 and 8 of the Act Therefore, in my considered view, the legislative intent, if properly understood would only mean that the effect of the expression the elected members of the Grama Panchayat cease to be the members' as used in Section 8(3) is to state that for the purpose of exercising their duties and functions as such members they cease to have any right or status and not to state that their seats get vacated and the posts become vacant requiring fresh election.”

¶102

19. By reading the above provision and the judgment,

¶103

it is very clear that the intention of the Legislature that the

¶104

effect of expression “the elected member of the Grama

¶105

¶106

Panchayat cease to be member” as used in Section 8(3) is to state that for the purpose of exercising their duties and functions as such members they cease to have any right or status or not to state that their seats get vacated and the posts become vacant requiring fresh election.

¶107

In the case on hand, since the Grama Panchayat is not deemed to be constituted as per the Act, the term of the Panchayat is not commenced. Therefore, it cannot be held that they are ceased to be the members of the Grama Panchayat.

¶108

In respect of the contention raised by the 7th respondent is concerned, the power under Section 268 of the Act for dissolution of the Panchayat, can be exercised only after duly constituting Grama Panchayat. For better understanding Section 268(1) of the Act reads as under:

¶109

“ 268. Dissolution of Panchayats.- (1) If,[on the recommendation of the Taluk Panchayat, or otherwise the Zilla Panchayat is of the opinion that], a Grama Panchayat exceeds or abuses its power or is not competent to perform or makes persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under this Act or any other law for the time being in force the [Zilla Panchayat may], by an order published in the official Gazette, dissolve such Grama Panchayat.”

¶110

¶111

On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that, if a Grama Panchayat exceeds or abuses its power or is not competent to perform or makes persistent default in the performance of the duties imposed on it under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, on recommendation of Taluk Panchayat or otherwise Zilla Panchayat may dissolve such Grama Panchayat. In this case in hand, the Grama Panchayat is not constituted as per Section 5(6) of the Act, the dissolution of Grama Panchayat would not arise. Hence, the contention of respondent No.7 do not hold water and the same is rejected.

¶112

Since Grama Panchayat itself is not constituted and the term of the petitioners is not completed, under this circumstance, the notification issued by the State Election Commission holding election to the petitioners’ constituency is without authority of law. To that extent, it is liable to be quashed.

¶113

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 08.03.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent/Election Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed in respect of petitioners’ constituency is concerned.

¶114

¶115

In this case, as per Section 5(7) of the Act, Election Commissioner has made 7 attempts to hold election to Arekurahatti village. For all the 7 times, the villages have boycotted the election. This action is against the democratic principles. The Government has to make an effort to convince the voters to participate in the election after considering their demands within the frame work of law.

¶116

JUDGE

¶117

kmv

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Vijayakumar Hemareddi Hallikeri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nissar S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Jafar Vs Farukh S/O Jafarsab @ Mohammed Killedar @ Mulla

Sri. Bharamappa S/O Late Gowiera Revanna Vs Smt. Eramma W/O Late Somappa

M/S.Shreya Briquetting Bio Energy Vs the Hukkeri Rural Electrical

Smt.Vijayalaxmi W/O Murugarajendra Mirji Vs Shri.Murugarajendra S/O Gurupadappa Mirji

G.Prem Charles S/O. G. Joseph Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Khairun Bee W/O Late P. Saddam Husain Vs the Joint Director