N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of learned Counsels appearing for both the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed off by this order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the order Chunavane: Sankeerna:1-2000-01, dated 25-9-2000 passed by the 3rd respondent. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was duly elected as a member of the Turvihal Gram panchayat on 29-2-2000 and thereafter continued as a member of the said Panchayat. The petitioner has stated that due to unavoidable reasons, she was absent for three ordinary meetings of the said Panchayat held on 9-5-2000, 3-7-2000 and 11-7-2000 and this fact was informed to the person serving the meeting notices that she was unable to attend the meeting of the said Panchayat. The petitioner also submits, 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 16-8-2000 calling upon her to show cause why she should not be removed as a member of the Gram panchayat as she was absent for three consecutive meetings. She had geven a reply stating that as there was a jatra in the said village and there was likely to be problem of Law and Order and she also learnt that there was threat to her life, she could not attend the meeting. Petitioner has also given a detailed representation assigning the reasons regarding non-attending the meeting of the said Panchayat. Without considering the said objections filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order Annexure-A, disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a member of the said Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the relevant rules the 3rd respondent has got no power to disqualify the petitioner from continuing as a member of the said Panchayat. In this regard, he placed reliance on Section 13 (l) © of the Karnataka panchayat Raj Act which reads as follows:"absents himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Gram Panchayat without the leave of the Gram panchayat or is absent from the Panchayat for more than four consecutive months. His seat shall be deemed to be or have become, as the case may be, vacant". ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, as seen from the records the petitioner was not absent for more than three ordinary meetings. His seat shall be deemed to be or have become, as the case may be, vacant". ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, as seen from the records the petitioner was not absent for more than three ordinary meetings. If that is the position of law, the 3rd respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a member of the said Panchayat and therefore the said impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent violates the principles of natural justice. Hence it is liable to be rejected. ( 6 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for 3rd respondent has justified the impugned order passed by 3rd respondent contending that admittedly petitioner was absent for three consecutive meetings but he is not in a position to justify the relevant provisions of the Act because the relevant provisions of the Act states that the member absents himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Gram panchayat without the leave of the Gram Panchayat, his seat shall be deemed to be or have become, as the case may be, vacant. But in the instant case, the petitioner was absent only on three occasions that too with intimation to the server who served the notice to her, stating that she is unable to attend the meeting in view of threat to her life. ( 7 ) THE 3rd respondent has not at all taken into consideration the representation given by the petitioner regarding the threat to her life due to jatra in the village there is law and order problem. Regarding these facts, no reference is coming forth in the impugned order. That too the petitioner is a duly elected representative representing to safeguard the interest of the Panchayat and she is well-aware of responsibilities of the member to safeguard the interest of the Panchayat and public in general of the said Panchayat coining within that area. But in the instant case the 3rd respondent has taken an unilateral decision without giving sufficient opportunity as required under the law nor any enquiry has been initiated under the relevant provisions of the Act. Hence, the decision taken by the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. But in the instant case the 3rd respondent has taken an unilateral decision without giving sufficient opportunity as required under the law nor any enquiry has been initiated under the relevant provisions of the Act. Hence, the decision taken by the 3rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) YET another reason the writ petition filed by the petitioner liable to be allowed on the ground that the 3rd respondent has taken an unilateral decision without application of mind not only in respect of the petitioner, but also in respect of other 11 members. This shows the bias attitude of the 3rd respondent. Without following the relevant provisions of the Act, he has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and other 11. members of the said Panchayat disqualifying these members from their membership of the said Panchayat. As per the relevant provisions of the Act, the 3rd respondent has no power to disqualify the members of the said Panchayat. His duty is only to place the report to the Competent authority to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, at any stretch the 3rd respondent has not made out a case to justify the action taken by him. The said impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is one without jurisdiction. Hence, it is liable to be rejected. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit or any credibility regarding the reasons assigned by the 3rd respondent by passing the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from continuing as a member of the said Panchayat is contrary to the relevant provisions of the act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-A in No. Chunavane: sankeerna:l-2000-01, dated 25-9-2000 is quashed. Parties to hear their own costs. --- *** --- .