Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 545 (KAR)

P. A. Yousuf v. Government of Karnataka

2003-07-11

H.G.RAMESH, N.K.JAIN

body2003
ORDER 1. Earlier on 8.7.2003 this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as it existed on that day and posted the case to today. Today this matter has come up for preliminary hearing before us. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in directing the Deputy Commissioner to supersede the present body of Gram Panchayat, Halgunda and to appoint the Petitioner as Administrator till the expiry of the present term of office of the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat, Halgunda. He submits that once the rejection of nomination of 3rd Respondent H.L. Sarojini is rejected, appointing her as Administrator does not arise and Upadhyaksha has to discharge the function of Adhyaksha and therefore, the order is liable to be set aside to that extent. 3. On the other hand, it is stated that the nomination was set aside taking the aid of the Rules. Learned Counsel submitted that the 3rd Respondent-Petitioner is the only woman candidate out of 11 elected members and as per the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, she has become entitled to function as Adhyaksha by rotation and therefore the rejection is bad and non-interference with the order is also bad as the Rules cannot be framed against the intention of the Act and in the fact situation, suppression has been rightly ordered while appointing the 3rd Respondent - Petitioner as Administrator and no interference is required. 4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that though as per Rules, nomination form prescribed is necessary, the names of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha can be proposed by the member and therefore, in the absence of any provision due to this anomaly, the order cannot be said to be bad and the 3rd Respondent-Petitioner can be appointed as Administrator. 5. In the counter, it is stated that earlier the Appellant-3rd Respondent was functioning as Adhyaksha and later, he has become the Upadhsksha for this term and he is trying to oust the 3rd Respondent-Petitioner from functioning as Adhyaksha, which is not permissible under the Act itself. It is also brought to our notice that in an identical matter, the Division Bench in Katagihalli Anandappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. It is also brought to our notice that in an identical matter, the Division Bench in Katagihalli Anandappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 1995 (3) Kar.L.J. 512 (DB), has given a direction to make necessary rectification and to amend the Rules, but nothing has been done so far and therefore, the orders needs no interference. 6. However, learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the order to the extent of suppression can be set aside and the first Appellant can be appointed as Adhyaksha instead of Upadhysksha. Admittedly, the fact remains that there is anomaly in the rules. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is well settled that the Rules can supplement to the Act, but it cannot be inconsistent with the Act. Making any rule to frustrate the object of the Act is not sustainable. The fact remains that as per the Act, a woman candidate is entitled to become Adhyaksha. As per rotation, once there is no other lady member, the question of proposing her does not arise as contemplated under the Rules and there is no choice under the Act but to appoint her as Adhyaksha as she is the only woman candidate under S.C. Category. 9. In the fact situation, the learned Single Judge has allowed her to remain as Administrator by superseding the present body of Gram Panchayat, Halgunda, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of supersession and instead of Administrator, she can function as Adhyaksha till the anomaly is solved. 10. As stated earlier, the Government will remove the anomaly at the earliest. Put up this matter after two months.