Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 67 (KAR)

SRIRANGADEVARAYALUV v. MAHADEVAPPA

1989-02-21

H.G.BALAKRISHNA

body1989
BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has questioned the nomination of the 1st respondent as the chairman of the Gangavathi Taluk Panchayat samithi by virtue of the Notification dated 13-8-1987 issued by respondent No 2. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a duly elected member of the Kar. Legislative Assembly representing Kanakagiri Constituency. In regard to Gangavathi Taluk, there are two Members for Legislative Assembly representing parts of the said Taluk and the 1st respondent is one of such Members. The petitioner represents 94 booths in Gangavathi and the 1st respondent represents 66 booths. Out of 16 Mandals in Gangavathi Taluk, 9 Mandal Panchayats are situated in the Assembly constituency of Kanakagiri and 7 Mandal panchayat Committees are situated in the Assembly Constituency of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that, out of 7 Mandal Panchayats, two villages, viz. , Mastoor and Kuntoji fall within sriramaga Mandal Panchayat Committee within the Kanakagiri Assembly Constituency. ( 3 ) SOMEADDITIONAL statistics furnished by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent are the Kanakagiri Constituency has a population of 1,49,798 with 95,289 voters where as Gangavathi Constituency has a population of 3,29,373 with 1,06,507 voters. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that tha 2nd respondent was not justified is issuing the notification nominating the 1st respondent as the chairman of Gangavathi Taluk Panchayat samithi and that such a nomination is contrary to the provisions of Section 135 (3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the short point for consideration is whether the nomination is hit by Section 135 (3) of the Act and is. therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 153 (3) of the Act which read as follows :"the Member of the Legislative assembly representing the major part of the taluk shall be the Chairman and if no Member of the Legislative Assembly is available, or if the member becomes a Minister, the Taluk Panchayat Samithi shall elect the Chairman from among its members. "according to Section 2 (33) of the act, 'taluk' means a revenue taluk but excluding therefrom the limits of a municipal corporation, a municipality, or a sanitary board, town board or notified area committee constituted or continued under any law for the time being in force. ( 7 ) FROM the definition of the word 'taluk', it is clear that the expression means the area occupied by a revenue taluk subject to the exclusions provided under the definition. According to subsection (3) of Section 135 of the Act, it is the Member of the Legislative Assembly who represents the major part of the taluk that shall be the Chairman and, if no Member of the Legislative Assembly is available, or if the Member becomes a minister, the Taluk Panchayat Samithi shall elect the Chairman from among its members. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel fcr the 1st respondent tried to place a construction that the words representing the major part of the taluk" convey the meaning the major part of the taluk in regard to its population and not area or extent. In other words, the learned Counsel submitted that what is relevant is not the extent of the taluk but the major part of the population. ( 9 ) THE interpretation is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory provision under consideration, if the taluk means a revenue taluk, it refers to the geographic area and similarly the words "representing the major part of the taluk" obviously mean the major part of the revenue taluk with reference to the geographical limits and certainly not with reference to the population of that area. The word 'population1 is not used either in sub-section (3) of Section 135 or in sub section (33) of section 2 of the Act. In the matter of interpretation of the statute, it is necessary to resort to a reasonable interpretation of the plain language of the section as it exists and not to stretch the meaning so as to include or import words or expressions which the legislature has not incorporated in the statute. In other words, it is my opinion that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 135 of the act does not lend itself to any ambiguity and defies any other interpretation. In other words, it is my opinion that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 135 of the act does not lend itself to any ambiguity and defies any other interpretation. I, therefore, hold that under sub-section (3) of Section 135 of the Act, only a member of the Legislative Assembly representing the major part of the taluk and not major part of the population shall be the Chairman. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the 1st respondent has been nominated as the chairman on considerations which are impermissible under sub-section (3) of sec. 135 of the Act. ( 11 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, rule is issued and made absolute. The Writ Petition is Allowed. The impugned Notification dated 13-8-1987, in so far as nominating the 1st respondent as the Chairman of the Gangavathi taluk Panchayat Samithi, is concerned, is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the nomination of the petitioner as the Chairman of the Gangavathi Taluk Panchayat samithi in accordance with law and decide the same within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .