N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Nimmi swamy, high court government pleader, is directed to take notice for respondent 1, and she was also heard in the matter. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 2 and 3 are the pradhan and the upa-pradhan respectively of idkidu mandal panchayat of buntwal taluk, dakshina kannada district. Since the offices of the pradhan and upa-pradhan are non-executive offices and they shall not be in need of money, in order to meet their pocket expenses towards attending the meeting of the mandal panchayat and also for meeting other office work, they were paid Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- under the Provisions of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats (travelling and daily allowances to pradhan and upa-pradhan and members of mandal panchayats) rules, 1985 framed under Section 284 of the Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samilhis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') as honorarium. As per the said rules every pradhan is entitled honorarium in the form of sitting fee a sum of Rs. 300/- whereas upa-pradhan is entitled to a sum of Rs. 150/- per month. The powers are given to the pradhan or the upa-pradhan to draw the said amount directly. However, every mandal panchayat has an executive officer in-charge of finance. He is called as the secretary of the mandal panchayat who has to draw and give the honorarium to the pradhan and the upa-pradhan. While discharging the services of the pradhan and the upa-pradhan, they overdrew Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- respectively for the period from 1-7- 1987 to 31-7-1987. When the audit party audited the accounts of the mandal panchayat, it found out the irregularity in drawing the said amounts by pradhan and upa-pradhan. Accordingly, the audit party mentioned the said irregularity in the audit report. As usual the monthly meeting of the mandal panchayat was notified to be held on 25-1-1989. The subject was to discuss and accept the audit report. Before 25-1-1989, the pradhan of the mandal panchayat remitted the amount of Rs. 300/- alleged to have been withdrawn by him to the mandal panchayat account. Whereas, the upa-pradhan remitted the said amount only on 19-4-1989. The meeting scheduled to be held on 25-1-1989 was held on that day. The subject was to discuss and accept the audit report. Before 25-1-1989, the pradhan of the mandal panchayat remitted the amount of Rs. 300/- alleged to have been withdrawn by him to the mandal panchayat account. Whereas, the upa-pradhan remitted the said amount only on 19-4-1989. The meeting scheduled to be held on 25-1-1989 was held on that day. But, in the absence of any subject slated for discussion, at the end of the meeting, it appears, some of the members requested the pradhan who had presided over the meeting that it was improper on his part to preside over such meeting where he 'has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest' as mentioned in the audit report. Thus their misdeeds of overdrawing the amounts of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- are to be condemned. After the meeting on 25-1-1989, the opponents to respondents 2 and 3 not being content with the action of the pradhan and the upa-pradhan approached the deputy commissioner with the copies of the resolution passed on 25-1-1989 and evidence relating to the remittance of the amounts overdrawn by the pradhan and upa-pradhan on 21-1-1989 and 19-4-1989 respectively and requested him to disqualify these persons under Section 12 (l) (ii) of the act on the ground that their participation in the meeting that was held on 25-1-1989 was in direct contravention of Section 51 (4) of the act. At the request made by the opponents to respondents 2 and 3, the deputy commissioner issued show cause notice to the pradhan and the upa-pradhan on 27-4-1989 calling upon them why they should not be disqualified for attending the meeting that was held on 25-1-1989 as they participated in the meeting knowing fully the subject slated for discussion in that meeting. Added to this the pradhan should not have exercised his vote when the resolution was moved by even strength. As soon as the show cause notices were served on them, respondents 2 and 3 showed their cause by filing their replies that the tentative decision of the deputy commissioner that they deserved to be disqualified was not correct. They submitted before the deputy commissioner that sections 12 (l) (ii) and 51 (4) of the act cannot be made applicable to them. They submitted before the deputy commissioner that sections 12 (l) (ii) and 51 (4) of the act cannot be made applicable to them. They also submitted that no action under Section 12 (l) (ii) of the act should be taken as the material that were made available to the deputy commissioner were not sufficient for him to disqualify them. Section 12 (l) (ii) of the act reads as follows:"12. Disqualification for members. (1) if a member of a mandal panchayat, (i) xxx xxx xxx. (ii) votes or takes part in discussion in contravention of the Provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 51; (iii) xxx xxx xxx. His seat shall be deemed to be or to have become, as the case may be, vacant". Section 51 (4) of the act reads as follows:"51. Quorum and procedure. (1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) xxx xxx xxx. (3) xxx xxx xxx. (4) no member of a mandal panchayat shall note on, or take part in the discussion of, any question coming up for consideration at a meeting of a mandal panchayat, if the question is one in which, apart from its general application to the public, he has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest, and if the person presiding has such an interest, he shall not preside over the meeting when such question comes up for consideration. (5) xxx xxx xxx. (6) xxx xxx xxx". they also contended before the deputy commissioner that first of all they did not commit any act which disqualifies them to continue as members of the mandal panchayat and also to continue on the respective posts which they held. They further contended that the mere objection as mentioned in the audit report was not sufficient to reach the conclusion that they were liable to be disqualified as they in noway were responsible for drawing those amounts. Lastly, they contended that even though the amounts of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- were shown as overdrawn by way of sitting fee or honorarium, the said amounts were not in fact overdrawn by them but were paid to them by the secretary in the usual course. Even such amounts which could not be objectionable were repaid by the pradhan earlier to the meeting, i. e. , on 21-1-1989, by the upa-pradhan subsequent to the meeting, i. e. , on 19-4-1989. Even such amounts which could not be objectionable were repaid by the pradhan earlier to the meeting, i. e. , on 21-1-1989, by the upa-pradhan subsequent to the meeting, i. e. , on 19-4-1989. On these grounds they submitted that either on the date of making complaint to the deputy commissioner or on the date of issuing the show cause notice they had not incurred any disqualification. Apart from these contentions, respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in order to say that a particular amount was overdrawn as objectionable amount, first there shall be an enquiry and thereon the said amount shall be determined whether it is an amount drawn in excess and, if it is so, whether it was at their instance or it was paid by mistake, (ii) whether there was any demand by the secretary to the mandal panchayat or the zilla parishad calling upon the respondents to pay off those amounts, (iii) whether there was anything to show that they had any interest in any of the activities of the mandal panchayat which touches the fund or properties of the panchayat or they were appropriating or utilising the money belonging to the panchayat, (iv) the amount mentioned as overdrawn by way or honorarium or sitting fee cannot be brought under the definition of 'pecuniary interest'. Accepting all these contentions raised by respondents 2 and 3, the deputy commissioner passed the order dated 11-10-1989 refusing to disqualify these respondents under Section 12 (2) of the act. The said order of the deputy commission is under challenge in this writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it is not in dispute that when respondents 2 and 3 had overdrawn Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- respectively for the period from 1-7-1987 to 31-7-1987, in view of Section 12 (l) (ii) read with Section 51 (4) of the Act, the deputy commissioner should have disqualified them. Secondly, inspite of the material placed before the deputy commissioner which establish that respondents 2 and 3 had really committed an act which deserves them to be disqualified, the deputy commissioner failed to disqualify them on the ground that there was nothing to show that it was a clear case to exercise the power conferred on him. Secondly, inspite of the material placed before the deputy commissioner which establish that respondents 2 and 3 had really committed an act which deserves them to be disqualified, the deputy commissioner failed to disqualify them on the ground that there was nothing to show that it was a clear case to exercise the power conferred on him. Thirdly, he contended that merely because the 2nd respondent paid back the amount just earlier to the meeting and the 3rd respondent paid back the amount earlier to issuing show cause notice, such acts will not absolve them from they having committed an act of disqualification. Lastly, he submitted that there are not cases where an opportunity of being heard should be given to respondents 2 and 3 by the deputy commissioner when prima facie they had overdrawn the amount as admitted by them. ( 4 ) MR. Sanjay gowda and Mr. S. n. bhat, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, reiterated what their counter-parts had done before the deputy commissioner and submitted that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this is not a case where respondents 2 and 3 shall have to be disqualified for the following reasons: it is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent had repaid the amount that was allegedly overpaid to him before the meeting. The 3rd respondent repaid the amount before issuing the show cause notice. There is nothing to show that the socalled amounts overdrawn by them as honorarium or sitting fee were never decided by the competent authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 had voluntarily overdrawn the amounts from the mandal panchayat they being the pradhan and upa-pradhan, respondents 2 and 3 were not the executive officers or drawing officers. The drawing officer is the secretary to the mandal panchayat. The secretary might have given those amounts either by mistake or without knowing the quantum of amount the pradhan or the upa-pradhan were entitled to keep with them in a given month. Further Mr. Krishnaiah could not connect respondents 2 and 3 to any other issue that will have monetary affairs relating to the mandal panchayat. The secretary might have given those amounts either by mistake or without knowing the quantum of amount the pradhan or the upa-pradhan were entitled to keep with them in a given month. Further Mr. Krishnaiah could not connect respondents 2 and 3 to any other issue that will have monetary affairs relating to the mandal panchayat. These amounts had been paid to the pradhana and the upa-pradhan out of the consolidated fund ear-marked to the mandal panchayat. It is the practise to give pocket money to the pradhan and upa-pradhan to attend the meeting regularly as they are the responsible office bearers of the mandal panchayat the honorarium is not even a salary. Apart from these, respondents 2 and 3 as soon as it was brought to their notice that they were paid in excess, as reported by the audit party, very faithfully remitted the amounts alleged to have been overdrawn by them to the mandal panchayal further, in the meeting that was held on 25-1-1989 it was not one of the subjects slated for discussion. What was to be discussed in the meeting was the audit report. Merely because it was shown in the audit report that a particular amount has been withdrawn, it is not sufficient to hold that the said amount was drawn contrary to the rules. To arrive at a conclusion that respondents 2 and 3 had overdrawn the amount, there should have been an enquiry and further those amounts have to be determined by giving an opportunity to them to submit their say in the matter, viz. , under what circumstances the amounts were overdrawn or whether the amounts were paid in excess by the secretary. Apart from these, when the deputy commissioner issued the show cause notices on 27-4-1989 these respondents were not in any way liable to pay the amounts to the mandal panchayat, since the amounts objected to were already repaid by them. Thus the deputy commissioner is right in arriving at the conclusion that none of the respondents had in any way violated the Provisions of Section 51 (4) of the act so as to attract the Provisions of Section 12 (1) (ii) of the act to disqualify them. Accordingly, the deputy commissioner was perfectly justified in not entertaining the frivolous complaint alleged to have made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the deputy commissioner was perfectly justified in not entertaining the frivolous complaint alleged to have made by the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. ( 7 ) SMT. Nimmi swamy, high court government pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance for respondent 1 within 4 weeks from today. 1992 (4) kar. Lj. 146 (db) in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore 25 th september, 1992 (division bench) k. Shivashankar bhat and r. Ramakrishna, JJ. Meenakshamma v M. C. Nanjundappa @ m. c. rajanna and others (a) hindu succession Act, 1956 whether an earlier gift of property by the father to a daughter would deprive the right of the daughter as an heir to claim a share in the family property. --- *** --- .