T. Shambulingappa vs State of Karnataka and Others

This petition relates to rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner for election to Village Panchayat of Mincheri in Bellary Taluk.

I directed the Government advocate to take notice on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly Sri B.B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government Pleader took notice and appeared for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

The nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that there has been arrears of house tax by the petitioner to the Panchayat. The petitioner has produced a certificate dated 30-5-1978 issued by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat (Ex. B) to the effect that the petitioner is not in arrears of tax.

It is unnecessary to go into the question whether the petitioner is actually in arrears of tax or not. The arrears of tax is not one of the disqualifications for a person being chosen as a member of the Panchayat. As no such disqualification is prescribed under Sec. 11 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, the Election Officer has contravened rule 12 of the Election Rules in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Sec. 13 of the Act, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the bar created by clause (3) of Art. 226 of the Constitution.

In W.P. No. 5014 of 1978, (1979) 1 Kar. LJ. 153, I have held that the remedy, which a petitioner whose nomination paper is rejected seeks in a writ petition, cannot be granted by the election court and therefore, there is no bar for entertaining the writ petition. Hence, I over-rule the preliminary objection.

For the reasons stated above, rule is made absolute. The order of the Election Officer dated 5-6-1978 (Ex. A) rejecting the nomination of the petitioner is quashed. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to respondent-3 to accept the nomination of the petitioner and to proceed with the elections. A copy of this order shall be forwarded immediately to respondent-3 and also a copy shall be furnished to learned counsel for the respondents.

Sri B.B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents within two weeks.

[1979](1)kar.l.j. 171

Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), ss. 47, 48 & 57 - Suo motu application for new route - Determination under s. 47(3) - Grant of permit.

If a person makes suo motu an application to the RTA for grant of a permit for a stage carriage over a new route in respect of which there is no prior determination under s. 47(3) of the Act and thereafter the RTA makes a determination under s. 47(3), it will not be legally impermissible for the RTA to consider and decide at its next sitting whether a permit should be granted to that person without inviting applications.

If the two decisions one under s. 47(3) and the other on the merits of the application are independent and mutually exclusive, then the requirements of the law are satisfied and the interval of time between the two assumes no materiality.

Prudence and propriety and consideration of promotion of public interest might well require and persuade the RTA that applications be invited and the pending applications disposed of along with applications so received in response to the notification inviting applications.