Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 775 (KAR)

D. v. SADANANDA GOWDA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-11-24

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2000
SREEDHAR RAO, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a member of a legislative assembly representing Puttur Constituency and also the Deputy Leader of opposition in Karnataka Legislative Assembly has raised a contention in the Writ Petition that the Government is adopting discriminatory policy in considering the recommendations and the views of the members of the legislative assembly white appointing the members to i) Aradhana Committee ii) Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the Government land and Land Grant committee and (iii) The Land Tribunals. ( 2 ) WITH regard to the appointment of the members to the Land Tribunal, instructions are issued by the Government dated 11. 11,1991 at Annexure A to the Asst. Commissioners and to the Deputy commissioners laying down the guidelines to be followed by them while recommending the names of the persons to be appointed as members of the Land Tribunal and in the proposed recommendations, there should be a proposal of a name of one person at least from the category of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and one from the women quota. It is also specifically mentioned that the names of the persons so proposed should have a good integrity and efficiency for being appointed as members and it is also directed that the proposals of the names should be sent after consultation with the mlas of the respective constituencies to the Government for consideration. ( 3 ) IN the present petition it was contended that the names recommended by the petitioner for appointment for the aforesaid committees as per Annexures E, f and G is likely to be ignored by in the course of hearing of the case has produced Annexures F and g, where in the persons appointed for Aradhana Committee and committee for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation for Puttur taluk are not the one recommended by the petitioner. Therefore, it is strenuously contended that the appointments are made on political consideration without adhering to the guidelines as per Annexure-A and that no effective consultation of the M. L. As made while the members of the committees are appointed. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed I. A. for vacating the interim order, contending that in view of the interim order, the appointment to various committees has come to a stands still and that the contentions and the allegations made in the Writ Petitions are unfounded and baseless. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed I. A. for vacating the interim order, contending that in view of the interim order, the appointment to various committees has come to a stands still and that the contentions and the allegations made in the Writ Petitions are unfounded and baseless. 6. The remedy sought by the petitioner in the Writ Petition perhaps traverses beyond periphery of the grievance concerning the petitioner and his taluka. In the present petition virtually a relief is sought which is almost in the nature of public interest litigation. In the course of the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would confine the reliefs sought to the committees that would come within the jurisdiction of his constituency7. The provisions of the Land Revenue Act or the Land Reforms act and the Rules envisage formation of committees for regularisation and land grants and for Land Tribunals etc and further makes an emphasis on the aspect of reservation to the members belonging to the Schedule Caste/schedule Tribe and women but however they do not lay out details of the working modalities for the appointment. In that context, the Government with an object of displaying the fairness and transparency required for a democratic polity in appointing members to the committees has issued guidelines vide annexure-A. The guidelines in Annexure-A only pertains to the appointment of members to the Land Tribunal. ( 5 ) THE precised questions that stare, in the Writ Petition are, whether the circular instructions issued have any legal and binding force and whether the consultation envisaged in Annexure A with the M. L. As of the respective constituencies is imperative and whether any recommendation made by the M. L. A. is binding and inviolable, on the aspect of consultation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in STATE OF JAMMU and KASHMIR vs A. R. ZAKKI AND OTHERS. In the said decision, the connotation of the word 'consultation' has been elucidated thus:"though consultation does not mean "concurrence" it postulates an effective consultation which involves exchange of mutual view points of each other and examination of the relative merits of the other point of view. In the said decision, the connotation of the word 'consultation' has been elucidated thus:"though consultation does not mean "concurrence" it postulates an effective consultation which involves exchange of mutual view points of each other and examination of the relative merits of the other point of view. "in that view of the matter, it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that consultation postulated should be effective consultations and not a mere technical compliance it should not be a farce exercise with predetermined or prejudged views. 9. The learned Advocate General stoutly repelling the allegations and the contentions submitted that the wild allegations made in the writ Petition have no basis and it is only on the basis of a make- believe allegations the petition is filed and that the Government is yet to complete the exercise of finalising the appointments to all the committees in the State. In view of the interim order, the Government is prevented from constituting the committee in the entire" State. 10. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted a copy of the reply given by the Hon'ble Minister for revenue on the floor of the house, wherein it is clarified that the government while constituting the taluk committee would consult the representative M. L. As before taking final decision. 11. Although the circular instructions of guidelines issued to the high level revenue authorities the procedure to be followed while recommending the names for appointment to the committees have no statutory force but nonetheless binds the Government as a gentleman's promise and Government has to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the respective M. L. As without discriminatory political considerations and the authorities should also comply the guidelines and there has to be uniform practice of me guidelines lest any such irrational discriminatory treatment in considering the recommendations would amount to malafide exercise of power. 12. The consultation envisaged before making appointment to the committees also would not necessarily mean that the recommendations made by the M. L. A. s of the constituencies shall be conclusive and binding. 12. The consultation envisaged before making appointment to the committees also would not necessarily mean that the recommendations made by the M. L. A. s of the constituencies shall be conclusive and binding. However, there has to be an effective consultation with open mind by the authorities concerned and it may be open to the Government in its executive discretion to differ with the views of the M. L. As, but it would be unfair on the part of the government as a principle by a policy to reject the recommendations of the opposition members and only the recpmmendations of the m. L. As of the ruling party to be heeded. Therefore, without any preconceived notions or prejudices in all fairness, the Government has to make appointment to the committees in question keeping in view the spirit of guidelines issued lest any discriminatory or malafide action may become vulnerable to challenge. On the question of the appointments made to the Aradhana committee and committee for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation for Puttur Taluk, vide annexures F and G (it should be alphabeticallly ordered as H and j) excepting the fact that the names recommended by the petitioner is not accepted, there is no material otherwise placed to suggest political discrimination and malafide exercise of power on the part of the Government. Under the circumstances with the observations made above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. --- *** --- .