Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 110 (KAR)

TALUK PANCHAYATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-02-02

H.N.TILHARI

body2001
H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) ). BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :- (A) To quash the Annexure-B dated 12-3-1998 and also Annexure-C resolution No. 3 (a), dated 17-3-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent by issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction as the case may be. (B) Issue such other incidental relief which may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and for cost. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-Chairman of the Taluk Panchayath in the district of Shimoga has filed this writ petition with allegation to the effect that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 i. e. , Zilla Panchayath, Shimoga have got some powers and duties and they have got separate activities, power and schemes to discharge the object of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. According to the petitioner's case, Zilla Panchayath and Taluk Panchayath and Gram Panchayath discharge their functions in their respective fields in exercise of powers under S. 312 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. According to the petitioner's, respondent No. 1 issued a notification on 16-7-1994 and as per the notification the list of activities and programmes and the schemes have been added to Schedules-II and III respectively and at item No. 13. XX Women and child development programmes etc. , have been added to Schedule II relating to the functions of Taluk Panchayath. The petitioner's case is that in view of this amendment, the petitioner made several requests to respondent No. 2 - Zilla Panchayath not to distribute food articles to Anganavadi centres as they have no power to do so. but, in spite thereof, the respondent No. 2 - Zilla Panchayath in their meeting held on 12-3-1998 resolved to distribute food articles to Anganavadi centres by them through differ-ent Taluk societies in Shimoga District. It was further resolved by the General Body Meeting of the respondent No. 2 that in spite of petitioner's objection, they will implement the same. The petitioner's case in view of notification Annexure-A is that the petitioner Taluk Panchayath has got power to appoint agent to distribute food articles to Anganavadi Centres in Sorab Taluk and they passed a resolution appointing respondent No. 4 as its agent. The petitioner's case in view of notification Annexure-A is that the petitioner Taluk Panchayath has got power to appoint agent to distribute food articles to Anganavadi Centres in Sorab Taluk and they passed a resolution appointing respondent No. 4 as its agent. It is also been resolved by resolution dated 23-3-1998 that since Zilla Panchayath interferes with the functions of the petitioner - Taluk Panchayath, the Chairman of the Taluk Panchayath shall seek a redressal in Court of law. So, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Annexure-B dated 12-3-1998 as well as the other resolution No. 3 (a) dated 17-3-1998 passed by respondent No. 2-Zilla Panchayath. ( 3 ) NOTICE had been issued and on behalf of respondent No. 2, the statement of objections has been filed. ( 4 ) IT has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent No. 2 is entrusted with certain powers under S. 184 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 and one of the functions relates to women and child development programme. It has been further stated that as per Schedule-III sub-title XX, the powers and functions relating to women and child development pertains to and come within the realm of the Zilla Panchayath so the petitioner's case is baseless. Respondent No. 2 - Zilla Panchayath has taken steps to identify the supplying agencies and that so far as the powers of Taluk Panchayath to indent and to distribute the food articles to Anganavadi centres as well as identification of beneficiaries are not interfered with. According to respondent No. 2-Zilla Panchayath, it is discharging its duties as per provisions of the Act and Government Order dated 31-3-1998. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE Government in exercise of its power under S. 312 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 issued Schedules specifying the functions. Schedule III in the list relates to the Zilla Panchayath and gives list of activities, programmes and schemes to be added in relation to Zilla Panchayath. There is also list No. 2 which describes the list of activities and programmes of Taluk Panchayath. Item No. 20 as contained in the list - 2 is women and child development and it includes in itself school children feeding programmes as item No. 10 thereto. There is also list No. 2 which describes the list of activities and programmes of Taluk Panchayath. Item No. 20 as contained in the list - 2 is women and child development and it includes in itself school children feeding programmes as item No. 10 thereto. A perusal of the two lists per se reveals that the duties and rights relating to women and child development including school children feeding programme have been placed in list -2 which is the list of activities of Taluk Panchayath and the same is not contained in the list of Schedule III. ( 6 ) UNDER S. 312 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, power to amend Schedules-I, II and III has been conferred on the Government. It appears in the original act that there were three Schedules. Schedule-I related to matters coming within the purview of S. 58 i. e. , functions of Grama Panchayath. In the Schedule also, item No. 20 has been there. Schedule II and (sic) relates to the functions of Taluk Panchayath. In this, item No. 20 is also mentioned as women and child development programme. Schedule-III is with reference to S. 184 of the Act which provides functions of Zilla Panchayath. Item No. 20 of Schedule III also bears a head - women and child development programme. As mentioned earlier, S. 312 of the Act confers power on the State Government to omit, amend or add any activity or programme by a scheme mentioned in Schedules - I, II or III and on issue of such notification, it has been provided that the Schedules shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. In 1994, the State Government exercising powers made amendment in Schedules II and III. As regards schedule III which deals with Zilla Panchayath, item No. 20 appears to have been omitted while in Schedule II dealing with the Taluk Panchayath, item No. 20 i. e. the scheme relating to women and child development have been maintained. ( 7 ) A perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition clearly reveals that so far as women and child development programme is concerned, from Schedule III item No. 20 has been omitted. ( 7 ) A perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition clearly reveals that so far as women and child development programme is concerned, from Schedule III item No. 20 has been omitted. Thus a perusal of Annexure-A to the writ petition will clearly reveals that programme under women and child development from the cover of schedule III which is the list of field of activities of Zilla Panchayath has been omitted. In view of this amendment made by the Government in exercise of power under S. 312, the programme of women and child development has been taken away and it remains only in the list of Schedule II which relates to Taluk Panchayath. ( 8 ) THUS considered in my opinion, the programme relating to women and child development having been taken out from the list of field of activities of Zilla Panchayath and it having been maintained only in the list relating to Taluk Panchayath, respondent No. 2- Zilla Panchayath can be said and is held to have no power to deal with such matters or to make selection or appointment of supplying agencies. As the women and child development scheme and programme had been taken out from the list of field of activities of the Zilla Panchayath, the Zilla Panchayath could not exercise the powers as it goes within the realm of the Taluk Panchayath. Thus considered in my opinion,the order Annexure-B dated 12-3-1998 and resolution 3 (a) dated 17-3-1998 contained in Annexure-C are illegal and without jurisdiction. When I so opine, I find support for my view from the decision of the Hon'ble justice L. Sreenivasa Reddy delivered on 24-3-1999 in Writ Petiton No. 34611/1996. ( 9 ) WRIT petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued against respondent No. 2-Zilla Panchayath, not to interfere with the petitioner's field of activities with respect to scheme of women and child development. Costs made easy. --- *** --- .