Karnataka Gazette, Part Part-3, 12 July 2018

click here for IIIF manifest

ಸಂಪುಟ ೧೫೩

Volume 153

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ (ಆಷಾಡ ೨೧, ಶಕ ವರ್ಷ ೧೯೪೦)

Bengaluru, Thursday, July 12, 2018 (Ashadha 21, Shaka Varsha 1940)

ಸಂಚಿಕೆ ೨೮

Issue 28

ಭಾಗ ೩

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಆಯಾ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥರ ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ

ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಗಳು

IN THE HON' BLE COURT OF 4TH M.M.T.C BENGALURU CITY

DATE: 18/06/2018.

It is hereby notified to the public that the Shankarapura police Station Bengaluru city have seized the following vehicles in Crime Number.53/2016 us .98 K.P.ACT and such vehicles are lying in the police station as unclaimed so far . Hence the owners of the properties & vehicles may put their claim one month form the date o this publication.

Bengaluru city.

M.M.T.C.COURT

Bengaluru city

Date: 18/06/2018

M.M.T.C.COURT

Bengaluru city.

Date: 18/06/2018

Bengaluru city.

P.R. 501

SC-10

ತೋಟಗಾರಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ತೋಇ 27 ರೇಉನಿ 2018, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 08-06-2018.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಂಡಳಿ ನಿಯಮಿತದ ಅಧಿಕಾರೇತರ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರುಗಳ ಅವಧಿಯು ಈ ಕೂಡಲೇ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ಬರುವಂತೆ ಕೊನೆಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ.

P.R. 497

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ,

ಎಂ.ಬಿ. ವಿಜಯಕುಮಾರ್

SC-10

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ,

ತೋಟಗಾರಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ (ರೇಷ್ಮೆ).

(೩೭೮೩)೩೭೮೪ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ ಭಾಗ ೩

ನಗರಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ನಅಇ 147 ಬೆಂಆಸೇ 2017, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 15-06-2018.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಯೋಜನಾ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1961ರ ಕಲಂ 4(ಬಿ) ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರದತ್ತವಾದ ಅಧಿಕಾರದನ್ವಯ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು- ಮೈಸೂರು ಇನ್‌ಪ್ರಾಸ್ಟ್ರಕ್ಚರ್ ಕಾರಿಡಾರ್ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಯೋಜನಾ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು, ಬೇಗೂರು ಹೋಬಳಿ, ಬೇಗೂರು ಗ್ರಾಮದ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ. 33/1 ರಲ್ಲಿನ 1 ಎಕರೆ 23 ಗುಂಟೆ, 34/3 ರಲ್ಲಿನ 1 ಎಕರೆ 38 ಗುಂಟೆ ಮತ್ತು 34/4ಎ ರಲ್ಲಿನ 13 ಗುಂಟೆ, ಒಟ್ಟು 3 ಎಕರೆ 34 ಗುಂಟೆ ಜಮೀನನ್ನು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-ಮೈಸೂರು ಇನ್‌ಪ್ರಾಸ್ಟ್ರಕ್ಚರ್ ಕಾರಿಡಾರ್ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಯೋಜನಾ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಹಿಂಪಡೆದು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ನಗರ ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರಾಮಾಂತರ ಯೋಜನಾ 1961ರ ಕಲಂ 4(ಎ) ರನ್ವಯ ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನನ್ನು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ಯೋಜನಾ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

P.R. 495

SC-100

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ, ಕೆ.ಎಸ್. ಜಗದೀಶರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ,

ನಗರಾಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಲಾಖೆ.

ತೋಟಗಾರಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ತೋಇ 12 ರೇಉನಿ 2018, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 08-06-2018.

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಉದ್ಯಮಗಳ ನಿಗಮ ನಿಯಮಿತದ ಅಧಿಕಾರೇತರ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರುಗಳ ಅವಧಿಯು ಈ ಕೂಡಲೇ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ಬರುವಂತೆ ಕೊನೆಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ.

P.R. 498

SC-10

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆದೇಶಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ, ಎಂ.ಬಿ. ವಿಜಯಕುಮಾರ್ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ,

ತೋಟಗಾರಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ರೇಷ್ಮೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ (ರೇಷ್ಮೆ).

ಪಿಂಚಣಿ, ಸಣ್ಣ ಉಳಿತಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ಆಸ್ತಿ-ಋುಣ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನಾಲಯ

ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಆದೇಶ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಪಿಂಸಆ (ಸಿ2) 15/2017-18, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 13-04-2018.

ವಿಷಯ : ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಛ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 09-02-2017ರ ತೀರ್ಪಿನನ್ವಯ ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸಿದ ಸಹಾಯಕ

ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರ ವೃಂದದ ಅಂತಿಮ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ : 1. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ನಡವಳಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಡಿಪಿಎಆರ್ 182 ಎಸ್ಆರ್ ಆರ್ 2011, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 06-05-2017.

2. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪತ್ರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಆಇ 51 ಸಮಯ 2018, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 28-03-2018.

ದಿನಾಂಕ : 13-04-2018.

3. ನಿರ್ದೇಶನಾಲಯ ಸಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಅ.ಜ್ಞಾ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 21-12-2017 ಮತ್ತು 12-03-2018. 4. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಸಿಆಸುಇ 639 ಸೆನೆನಿ 2017, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 04-04-2018. 5. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಮುಕಾ/500/2018, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 13-04-2018.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (5)ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸವೋಚ್ಛ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 09-02-2017ರ ತೀರ್ಪಿನನ್ವಯ ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸಿದ ಅಂತಿಮ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದರಂತೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 21-12-2017 ಮತ್ತು 12-03-2018ರಂದು ಪ್ರಚುರಪಡಿಸಲಾದ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರ ವೃಂದದ ಮಾಸ್ಟರ್ ಕೇಡರ್ ಅಂತಿಮ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : 84 (ಹೈದ್ರಾಬಾದ್-ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದದ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತಾ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : 5) ಮತ್ತು 86ರ ಎದುರಿಗಿರುವ "ಹಿಂಬಡ್ತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ" ಎಂಬ ಪದವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಿದೆ.

P.R. 499

ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು, ಪಿಂಚಣಿ, ಸಣ್ಣ ಉಳಿತಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ಆಸ್ತಿ-ಋುಣ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆ, SC-10

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು.

ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ : ಆಇ 194 ಅಖಇ 2017, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ : 11-06-2018.

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂ. ಆಇ 194 ಅಖಇ 2017(1) ದಿನಾಂಕ : 10-01-2018ರ ಅನುಬಂಧದಲ್ಲಿನ ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂ. 201ರ ನಂತರ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಹೆಸರುಗಳನ್ನು ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತೆ ಜ್ಯೇಷ್ಠತೆ ಕ್ರಮಾಂಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆ ಮಾಡಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ : 10-01-2018 ರಲ್ಲಿಂದಲೇ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುವಂತೆ ಭಾವಿಸಿ ತಿದ್ದಿ ಓದಿಕೊಳ್ಳತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಕ್ರಮ ಸಂ. 248 ರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀ ಆರ್. ತೇಜೋಮೂರ್ತಿ ಇವರು ಸಹಾಯಕ ಖಜಾನಾಧಿಕಾರಿ ವೃಂದದಲ್ಲಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಕೈ ಬಿಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

P.R. 500

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರ ಆಜ್ಞಾನುಸಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ, SC-10

ಜಿ. ಶಶಿಧರ್

ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧೀನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ,

ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಇಲಾಖೆ (ಆಡಳಿತ ಮತ್ತು ಮುಂಗಡಗಳು).

ಅರಣ್ಯ ಇಲಾಖೆ

ಅಧೀಕೃತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಉಪ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ, ಹಳಿಯಾಳ ವಿಭಾಗ, ಹಳಿಯಾಳ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ. ಸಿ2/ಗುನ್ನೆ/ವಾಹನ/ಮುಟ್ಟುಗೋಲು/ಸಿಆರ್-19/2017-18, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 14-02-2018.

ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ

ವಿಷಯ :

ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಕಳ್ಳ ಸಾಗಾಣಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿದ್ದ ವಾಹನಗಳನ್ನು ಮುಟ್ಟುಗೋಲು

ಹಾಕಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಕುರಿತು.

ಹಳಿಯಾಳ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಮರಮಟ್ಟುಗಳ ಕಳ್ಳ ಸಾಗಾಣಿಕೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಗುನ್ನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ವಾಹನಗಳನ್ನು ಜಪ್ತ ಮಾಡಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಎ ದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ನಡೆಯಿಸುವ ಕುರಿತು ಈ ವಿಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಘಟಕಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಇಲಾಖಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ ನಮೂದಿಸಿದ (1) ಅ. ನಂ. 1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಮಹೇಂದ್ರ ಜೀಪ KA-³⁷/M-¹⁴²⁶ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ: 26-11-2014, 12-01-2017, 22-03-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(2) ಅ. ನಂ. 2 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಟಿವಿಎಸ್ ಸೆಂಟ್ರಾ ಮೋಟರ್ ಬೈಕ್ GA-⁰⁵/A-²¹²⁸ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26-11-2014, 07-10-2016, 25-04-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(3) ಅ. ನಂ. 3 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಮಾರುತಿ ಓಮಿನಿ GA-⁰³/H-²²³⁶ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 06-12-2017, 14-12-2017, 08-01-2018 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(4) ಅ.ನಂ. 4 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಮಾರುತಿ ಓಮಿನಿ KA-²⁵/Z-⁵⁵⁷⁷ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 26-11-2014, 12-01-2017, 22-03-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(6) ಅ. ನಂ. 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಟ್ರ್ಯಾಕ್ಸ್ ಕ್ರೂಶರ್ KA-²⁵/B-¹³⁶⁶ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 6-11-2017, 23-11-2017, 14-12-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(7) ಅ. ನಂ. 7 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಟ್ರ್ಯಾಕ್ಸ್ ಕ್ರೂಶರ್ KA-⁰²/B-⁸⁶⁰⁴ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 16-1-2017, 25-5-2017, 23-11-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(8) ಅ. ನಂ. 8 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಮೋಟಾರ ಬೈಕ್ KA-²⁹/L-²²⁴² ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 25-01-2017, 22-03-2017, 03-04-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(9) ಅ. ನಂ. 9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಎಮ್-80 CNL-⁸⁵⁷⁸ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 22-03-2017, 03-04-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 2 (ಎರಡು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಸದರಿ ವಾಹನದ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ತಾವಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

(10) ಅ. ನಂ. 10 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಎಮ್-80 KA-³¹/E-⁹⁴¹⁶ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 03-12-2016, 31-12-2016, 11-12-2016 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(11) ಅ. ನಂ. 11 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಎಮ್-80 KA-²⁶/H-¹⁰¹⁶ ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 12-01-2017, 22-03-2017, 03-04-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

(12) ಅ. ನಂ. 12 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಜಪ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದ ವಾಹನ ಹಿರೋ ಹೊಂಡಾ ಫ್ಯಾಶನ್ ಪ್ರೊ KA-²²/EL-³⁸²² ರ ಮಾಲಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963 ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ 71ಬಿ ದರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 13-01-2017, 22-03-2017, 03-04-2017 ರಂತೆ ಕಾಲಾವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗಿಸಲು ಬಳಸಿಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು 3 (ಮೂರು) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಾಹನ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಇದೂವರೆಗೆ ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಕುರಿತು ಸಾಬೀತುಪಡಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲರಾದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಹನ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅನಧೀಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಸಾಗಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1963

PR - 496

ಅಧೀಕೃತ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು

ಉಪ ಅರಣ್ಯ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾಧಿಕಾರಿ,

SC - 10

ಹಳಿಯಾಳ ವಿಭಾಗ, ಹಳಿಯಾಳ.

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

CASE NO: SEC 01/CTP/2016

ORDER DATED: 03-04-2018

BETWEEN :

1. Deputy Commissioner,

Haveri District, Haveri.

2. Executive Officer.

Hangal Taluk Panchayath.

Hangal. . . . . Petitioners/ Complainants

V/s

1. Sri Abdul Bashirkhan S/o Ismail khan Pathan

Member, Hangal Taluk Panchayat, Hangal.

R/o, Akki Aluru, Hangal Taluk, Haveri District. . . . . . . Respondent

Represented by Advocate: Sri Prakash S Udikeri

The facts of the case :

1. The Respondent Sri Abdul Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan was elected as member of Grama Panchayat Akki Allur constituency -6 Hangal Taluk, Haveri district in the elections held on 05.06.2015. Subsequently he has also been elected as member of the Taluk Panchayat Akki Allur constituency-5, Hangal Taluk, Haveri district on 13.02.2016. The Regional Commissioner Revenue Division, Belagavi has notified the names of the elected Hangal Taluka Panchayat members on 30.03.2016 and this is published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14.04.2016. The Respondent's name in the Gazette figured at serial number 5, under Category General representing the party Indian National Congress.

2. Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Hangal, submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district in the letter dated 21.10.2016, stating that the Respondent was elected as member of Grama Panchayat Akki Aluru constituency-6 before being elected as member of the Taluk Panchayat Akki Allur constituency-5, Hangal Taluk, Haveri district. He further submits that the Respondent had expressed his willingness to continue as a member of Taluk Panchayat since he had already resigned from the Grama Panchayat membership on 23.07.2016 which was accepted by the President of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, the seat of Grama Panchayat, Akki Alur becomes vacant, under Section 43 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

3. Along with the letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, the Executive Officer has enclosed a certified copy of Karnataka Gazette notification dated 14.04.2016, in which the election results of Taluka Panchayat Hanagal, were notified by Regional Commissioner, Belagavi, on 30.03.2016, and a certified copy of the proceedings of meeting of the Hanagal Taluk Panchayat dated 12.05.2016, showing the respondent's participation in the meeting.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district in his report submitted to the State Election Commission on 8.11.2016 averring that, the Sri Abdual Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan, Akki Aluru the member of Taluk Panchayat, Hanagal has failed to resign the Grama panchayat membership within 15 days from the date of notification of names of members of Taluk Panchayat. Further submits he had tendered resignation to the Grama Panchayath membership on 23.07.2016, the same was accepted on 01.08.2016 in the Grama Panchayat. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri requests to disqualify the member of Taluk panchayat for the delay in submission of the resignation.

5. The Deputy Commissioner Haveri district in the additional submission dated 21.01.2017, has informed that as per the clarification received by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (RDPR) department, the resignation tendered for the seat of Grama Panhayath was accepted by the President of Grama Panchayat in 6 days, is contrary to the existing rules.

vacant u/s 128(2) and 133of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. Therefore directed Deputy Commissioner to submit a report u/s 129(2) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 to the State Election Commission for further needful action. Based on the above specified grounds Deputy Commissioner reports to the Commission that the Taluk Panchayat seat in Akki Allur constituency-5, Hangal Taluk, Haveri district has become vacant.

6. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department in the letter dated 09-12-2016 to the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district has clarified that, the action of President, Grama Panchayat, Akki Aluru accepting the resignation of the Respondent within a period of 6 days, instead of waiting for the completion of statutory period of 15 days contravenes Section 43 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. Hence, the seat of the Grama Panchayat cannot be considered vacant. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri has directed to submit a report to State Election Commission u/s 128 read with 129(2) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.

7. On the basis of report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, in the letter dated 08-11-2016, the Commission registered the case. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district and Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hangal taluk were made Petitioners and Abdul Basheer Khan Ismail Khan, Akki Aluru, Hangal Taluk, Haveri District was made Respondent, and issued notices to both the parties.

8. The notices were served on both the parties requiring them to appear before the Commission on 06-12-2016. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district has neither appeared in any one of the dates of hearing, nor authorized any officer in person to defend the case.

However, the Planning Officer, Hangal representing the Executive officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hanagal and the Respondent through his advocate, appeared before the Commission on 06.12.2016, 20.12.2016, 03.01.2017, 17.01.2016, 31.01.2017, 14.02.2017, 28.02.2017, 14.03.2017, 28.03.2017, 12.04.2017, 25.04.2017, 21.05.2017, 13.06.2017, 20-06-2017, 27.06.2017, 30.06.2017, 10.07.2017, 28.07.2017, 22.08.2017, 08.09.2017, 04.10.2017, 31.10.2017, 21.11.2017, 20.12.2017, 02.01.2018, 23.01.2018, 20.02.2018 and 06.03.2018.

9. The respondent has filed his objections through his Learned Advocate as follows.

(i) According to the objections filed by the Respondent, the complaint by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district is false, baseless and illegal as well. The respondent is an agricultural labourer of Akki Alur village. He can speak kannada but cannot read and write kannada language. In 2015 he had been elected as member of Gram panchayat Akki Alur. Later on 27.02.2016 he got elected as member of Hangal Taluk Panchayat, the same was notified in the gazette on 30.03.2016 by Regional Commissioner Belagavi. Within 15 days after becoming the member of Taluka panchayat after consulting his supporters in a meeting at his house on 07.04.2016, decided to resign from the membership of Gram Panchayat. He went to house of the President of Gram Panchayat Sri Pradeep B. Sheshagiri, handed over his resignation letter in writing, in presence of his supporters Sri Malleshappa Maddar, Smt. Rajiyabee Hittalamani, Smt. Mamtajbee Valikar, Sri. Abdul khadar yadachi, Abdul Shafi Hosakoppa and Sattarsab Araleshwar. He obtained the acknowledgment copy from the President Grama Panchayat, Akki Aluru with the seal and signature of the Grama Panchayat President Sri Pradeep B Sheshagiri.

Hence he pleaded that as the complainant has suppressed the truth, complaint is liable to be dismissed, and it is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission.

(ii) The Respondent further submits that, it is totally false to say that he resigned from his office on 23.07.2016 and that same was accepted on 01.08.2016 in the Grama Panchayat meeting.

On the other hand he had been invited to attend the meetings of Gram Panchayat, Akki Alur held on 21.03.2016, 30.05.2016 and 01.08.2016, after he became the Taluk Panchayat member. He attended all these meetings in the capacity of Taluk Panchayat Member. The Respondent claims that the President Gram Panchayat who use to be his political opponent by misusing his office has concocted the resignation letter dated 23.07.2016. The entire proceedings drawn by Gram Panchayat and the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner are not sustainable in the eye of law. There are no possibilities to consider Taluk Panchayat seat of the Respondent as vacant. Hence prays for dismissal of complaint.

10. The Planning Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hanagal taluk who has represented the Executive Officer and got himself examined as PW-1. Documents at Ex-P1 to P4 were marked. The Respondent has got himself examined as RW-1. Three witnesses were examined as RW2 to 4. Documents at Ex-R1, R1(a) and R1(b) are marked.

Both sides have filed written argument and addressed oral argument as well.

11. The Planning Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Hanagal on behalf of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hanagal taluk in the written argument filed before the Commission on 21.12.2017, submits that the Sri Abdual Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan, was member of Grama panchayat before becoming the Taluka panchayat member. Elections were conducted for the Grama panchayat on 05.06.2015, Sri Abdul Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan, was elected as Grama Panchayat member Akki Allur constituency-1 Ward no.6, Hangal Taluk, Haveri district. Subsequently in the elections of Taluka panchayat held on 13.02.2016 he became the member of Taluka Panchayat Akki Allur constituency-5, Hanagal taluk, Haveri district. The list of Taluka Panchayat elected members was notified by the Regional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Belagavi೩೭೯೦ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ ಭಾಗ ೩ on 30.03.2016. Later Sri Abdual Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan, tendered the resignation on 23.07.2016 which was accepted by President of Gram Panchayat on 29.07.2016 at 5.30 pm and forwarded on the same day to Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), Akki Alur for necessary action.

The PDO Akki Alur Sri DS Thotada attested and forwarded it to the Executive Officer, Taluka Panchayath on 20.08.2016, which was in turn sent to Deputy Commissioner, Haveri on the same day by Executive Officer. The Executive Officer submits that the Taluka Panchayat had no information about Sri Abdual Basheer Khan Ismail Khan Pathan submitting his resignation letter to the membership of Grama Panchayat to the President of the Grama panchayat on 07.04.2016 as claimed. According to the clarification issued by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RDPR) department to the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri district in the letter dated 09.12.2016, the President of the Grama panchayat has accepted the resignation before expiry of stipulated period of 15 days as per the existing rules. The Grama Panchayat member seat has not become vacant. However, the Taluka panchayat seat has to be considered vacant u/s 128(2) and 133 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993.

12. The respondent through his advocate Sri. Prakash S. Udikeri has filed reiterating the contention raised in the objections, he prays for dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the Gram Panchayat President has accepted his resignation and invited the Respondent to the Grama Panchayat meetings, held on 21.03.2016, 30.05.2016 and 01.08.2016 taken his signatures to the proceedings of the said meeting. He also submits that President by misusing his office, having suppressed the resignation letter dated 07.04.2016 by him, has caused irreparable loss to the respondent. Hence, he pleads for upholding the contentions of the respondent based on Ex-R1 and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

13. I have perused the entire records oral, documentary evidence and arguments as well.

The Points that arise for my consideration are as under:

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be disqualified?

2. What Order?

1. Answers :

1. Negative.

2. As per below order.

REASONS

14. The counsel for the Respondent submits that PW-1 having had no personal knowledge of facts, his evidence led in support of Ex-P1 to P4, shall be viewed with disfavor. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the complaint. I have pursued oral evidence of PW-1, and so also documents at Ex-P1 to P4. The burden is heavy on the complainant, to prove his case made out in the complaint that the respondent has failed to resign within 15 days after he was elected as Taluk Panchayath member. As per the Executive Officer's report, the resignation submitted on 23.07.2016 came to be accepted on 29.07.2016 by the President and the same was placed before Grama Panchayat General Body meeting and accepted on 01.08.2016. The respondent has taken a stand that though he handed over the original resignation letter dated:07.04.2016 marked as Ex-R1, and obtained acknowledgement of Sri Pradeep B Sheshagiri, President, Grama Panchayat, Akki Aluru marked as R1(b), has been suppressed by the President causing irreparable loss to him, as his membership of Taluk Panchayat is at stake.

15. PW-1 Sri Hanumagatti working as a Planning Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hangal Taluk since May 2016 has attended on behalf of Executive Officer. In his evidence he got marked report of Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District addressed to State Election Commission for disqualifying the Respondent from the membership of the Taluk Panchayat as Ex-P2. The letter dated:

21.01.2017 marked as Ex-P3 to show that Department of Rural and Panchayat Raj has opined that the action of the Grama Panchayat President in accepting the resignation of the Respondent on 6th day before the expiration period 15 days is illegal and asked for declaring the seat of Respondent to Taluk Panchayat as vacant.

16. Ex-P1 is letter dated 21-10-2016 by Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Hangal taluk to Deputy Commissioner stating that belated resignation of respondent is invalid in the eye of law. However, in the cross examination PW-1 admits that Executive Officer has not given any authority to depose in this case and further Deputy Commissioner never authorized him to depose on his behalf.

PW-1 further admits that he has no personal knowledge of the case and particularly the correspondence marked as Ex-P1 to P3. There is no much evidentiary value to the oral evidence of PW-1, because, in my opinion the concerned Executive Officer who had the personal knowledge of case and who corresponded with the Deputy Commissioner, the then Panchayat Development Officer of Akki Alur who had issued Form No.3 reporting the vacancy of Gram Panchayat of Akki Alur to Executiv Officer, Hanagal Taluk, Haveri district should have deposed in support of the complaint. Under these circumstances, Ex-P1 to P3 have not been proved beyond doubt at all and in accordance with law as held in Sadashiv H. Patil's case, wherein such cases proof beyond doubt is expected. The observations in Sadashiv H. Patil's case has been extracted below.

(i) The Legal Position is :

1. (2000) 8 SCC 82 = AIR 2000 SC 3044, Sadashiv H. Patil Vs Vithal D. Teke and others though rendered under Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (20 of 1987), Sections 3(1)(b) & 7,the Law laid down by Supremeಭಾಗ ೩ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ ೩೭೯೧ Court, would be attracted as enumerated in para 14 of the Judgment. I am also dealing in the present case with disqualification of Respondent who is elected member of Taluka panchayat and to declare the seat vacant, as such burden of proof would be very heavy upon the complainant herein.

The para no.14 of the above case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:

"A finding as to disqualification under the Act has the effect of unseating a person from an elected office

held by him pursuant to his victory at the polls in accordance with the democratic procedure of

constituting a local authority. The consequence befall not only him as an individual but also the

constituency represented by him which would cease to be represented on account of his having been

disqualified. Looking at the penal consequences flowing from an elected councilor being subjected to

disqualification and its repercussion on the functioning of the local body as also the city or township

governed by the local body provision have to be construed strictly.

A rigorous compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be shown to have taken place

while dealing with a reference under section 7 of the Act".

(ii) 2005 (2) Kar.L.J 191 in Abdul Nazir M.B. and others Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District,

Mangalore and Others – A decision rendered u/s 43 and 8 of Karnataka panchayat Raj Act, 1993, wherein it was held as under

"Resignation tendered on 04.09.2004, accepted by President on 18.09.2004 before expiry of 15 days

prescribed in section 43 of Act is contrary to said provision and bad in law –Members who have

tendered resignation are entitled to continue in their office until the term is over – Writ Petition

allowed".

17. Section 43, 128 and 133 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993

43. Resignation of member.- A member of a Grama Panchayat may resign his membership in writing under his hand

addressed to the Adhyaksha and his seat shall become vacant on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of such

resignation, unless within the said period of fifteen days he withdraws such resignation by writing under his hand addressed to

the Adhyaksha. 1 [The Adhyaksha shall cause the letter of resignation to be placed in the next meeting of the Grama

Panchayat.] 1

128. Disqualification for members : (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being member of a Taluk

Panchayat,- [(2) If a person who is chosen as a member of a Taluk Panchayat is or becomes a member of the House of the

People, the Council of States, the State Legislative Assembly, the State Legislative Council, or is or becomes a Municipal

Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a Councillor of a Town Panchayat, or a member of a Zilla Panchayat or

Grama Panchayat then at the expiration of a period of fifteen days from the date of notification of the names of the members

under section 133, or as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of commencement of term of office of a member of

the House of the people, the Council of states, the State Legislative Assembly or the State Legislative Council or a Municipal

Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a Councillor of a Town Panchayat or a member of a Zilla Panchayat or

Grama Panchayat, his seat in the Taluk Panchayat shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the

House of the People, the Council of States, the State Legislative Assembly, the State Legislative Council, the Municipal Council,

the Municipal Corporation

133. Publication of names of members.- The names of members elected to any Taluk Panchayat shall be 1 [reported to the

Commissioner who shall notify the names] 1 in the Official Gazette

18. The complainant relies on resignation letter of respondent dated 23.07.2016 marked as Ex-P4 and its acceptance by the President Sri. Pradeep Sheshagiri to show that he waited for only 6 days and then accepted the resignation tendered by the Respondent, on 29.07.2016. Per contra the respondent and his witnesses rely upon Ex-R1, said to be the acknowledgment given by the President Sri. Sheshagiri after receiving original resignation letter submitted by the respondent on 07.04.2016.

According to the Respondent as he resigned within a statutory period of 15 days from the date of notification issued by the Regional Commissioner, Belagavi Division publishing the names of the members elected in the Taluka Panchyat, Hanagal, he prays that his seat in Taluk Panchayat cannot be declared as vacant.

19. In so far as accepting the resignation allegedly tendered, marked as Ex-P4 on 23.07.2016, in my opinion is total illegal and invalid as is held in 2005 (2) Kar.L.J 191 in Abdul Nazir M.B. and others Vs The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore and Others(Referred Supra). In fact the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department also opined the same and gave clarification to the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of which Ex-P3 was addressed to this Commission, requesting the Commission, to declare the seat of the respondent of Taluk Panchayat held by Respondent as vacant.

20. Now considering Ex-R1, it is filed as a resignation letter, but respondent and his witnesses viz. RW-2 to RW-4 have deposed in one voice that all of them went to the house of the President Sri. Pradeep B. Sheshagiri, where respondent after handing out೩೭೯೨ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ ಭಾಗ ೩ resignation letter on 07.04.2016 did obtain acknowledgment under Ex-R1. Ex-R1 (a) is the signature of the respondent, whereas Ex-R1 (b) is the signature and seal of Sri. Pradeep B Sheshagiri. If at all as claimed by the Respondent that he resigned and submitted Ex-R1 on 07.04.2016 in the house of Sri Pradeep B Sheshagiri which should have been placed in the next meeting of Grama Panchayat for acceptance. A comparison of Ex-P4 and Ex-R1 in particular the seal and signature of the President appears to the naked eye as one and the same. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that, the evidence of Sri.

Sheshagiri on behalf of the complainant would have been of much importance and great relevance, for the purpose of clearing the cloud of suspicion surrounding Ex-P4 and Ex-R1 as well. Since we do not have evidence of Sri. Pradeep B. Sheshagiri, President, Akki Aluru Grama Panchayat on record, the complainant on whom burden is very heavy to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion the complainant has to fail to prove his case. We cannot put burden on the Respondent to prove his defense and Ex-R1 beyond reasonable doubt. We expect from the complainant a proof beyond reasonable doubt, for allowing the prayer for disqualifying the Respondent from his membership of Taluk Panchayat on the ground of resignation submitted beyond a period of 15 days from the date of Gazette notification dated: 30.03.2016. Since acceptance of Ex-P4 within a statutory period of 15 days namely in the present case, accepted after 6 days, having been rendered illegal and bad in law, the very basis of the case of the complainants vanishes.

21. The Panchayat president neither examined nor any other document were produced. The Respondent subsequent to his election to Taluk Panchayat has attended the Grama Panchayat meetings in the capacity of Taluk Panchayat member. The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent tendered his resignation beyond 15 days from the date of publication of the names of elected member. On the other hand Taluka Panchayat had simply forwarded the report to Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District. Deputy Commissioner in turn submitted the same to the Commission for adjudication. It is clear from the conduct of complainant that they have miserably failed in proving his case. It is not the duty of the Respondent to prove his case, onus of proving that the Respondent did not tender his resignation within 15 days lies on the Complainant, but the complainants have not succeeded in doing so. The evidence of President of Grama Panchayat, Akki alur was crucial. There are no documentary evidence produced before the Commission to show that the resignation letter was submitted by the Respondent on 07-04-2016 as claimed by the Respondent. It is significant to note that, the submission of the counsel for the Respondent that the Grama Panchayat had invited the Respondent at least on two occasions on 30.05.2016 and 01.08.2016, in his capacity as a Taluk Panchayat member that too after Respondent submitted his resignation on 07.04.2016. So it was for the President or Panchayat Development Officer of Gram Panchayat to explain this circumstance, which in my opinion operates against the complainants. PW-1 has merely pleaded ignorance but failed to stoutly deny that the Respondent has submitted the resignation on 07.04.2016, after meeting the President of Grama Panchayat along with supporters. Based on the above fact it is clear that the commission cannot come to conclusion that the Respondent has incurred disqualification and declare his seat vacant.

Viewed from the above point, I hold that complainants have failed, and their complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence I answer point no.1 in the negative.

In the result I pass the following

ORDER

Complaint dismissed.

Dictated, typed, corrected and then pronounced in open court on this day

Dated : 03.04.2018

P.N. Sreenivasachary

Commissioner,

P.R. 506

Karnataka State Election Commission, SC-25

Bengaluru.

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

CASE NO: SEC/ 02/CZP/2017

ORDER DATED: 17-04-2018

BETWEEN :

Panchayath Development Officer,

Galathaga Grama Panchayath,

Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District . . . . Petitioner/ Complainant

V/s

Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, member,

Zilla Panchayath, Belagavi District. . . . . . . Respondent

Represented by Advocate: Sri A.S. Naveen

the end of the financial year under section 43-B of The Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (KGSPR Act, 1993) that reads as follows:

43B. Members to declare assets and liabilities.– (1) Every member shall within three months from the date of

commencement of his term of office and until the expiry of his term in every calendar year, and within one month of the

end of the financial year, file a declaration of the movable and immovable assets and liabilities of more than two lakhs

owned by him and by all the members of his joint family in the form as may be prescribed before the state election

commission through the panchayat development officer of concerned Gram Panchayat: Provided that, where the term of

a member commences before two months of the end of the financial year such member may file his declaration within

two months after the commencement of the following financial year.

(2) the panchayat development officer of the concerned panchayat shall receive the declarations filed by all the

members and forward them to the state election commission in the first week of May of that year and, in the case of late

submissions, in the first week of July of the year, with a statement of members who have filed and who have not filed the

declaration.

(3) a member, who after filing a declaration under sub-section (1), acquires or disposes of any property or incurs any

liability shall file a declaration to that effect before the state election commission through the panchayat development

officer of the panchayat, within forty-five days from the date of such acquisition or disposal, as the case may be, and the

panchayat development officer shall follow the same procedure as in sub-section (1).

2. The Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities of elected members of Grama

Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat members) Rules, 2016, under Rule 3, every elected member of Grama Panchayat shall file a declaration of the movable and immovable properties worth more than Rs. 2.00 lakhs owned by him and by all the members of his joint family in the Form-1 as prescribed by the State Government until the expiry of his term in every calendar year.

In case the member fails to file the declaration of his assets and liabilities in Form 1 in the given time or files false declaration, then the State Election Commission has to act under Section 43-B(4) of the KGSPR Act, 1993,which reads as follows:

"43-B(4) if the member does not file the declaration within the time without reasonable cause or the

declaration is found to be false, shall be deemed to have committed guilty of misconduct and the state

election commission shall after giving an opportunity of hearing, remove him from membership and

declare his seat vacant."

3. Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, Grama Panchayat member, Bheemapurawadi Constituency, ward No.11, Galathaga Grama Panchaya-18, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District has failed to declare the Assets and Liabilities of his and his joint family in the prescribed Form 1 for the year 2016-17. Accordingly, notice has been issued to Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar for not filing the declaration within the time given in the Act i.e., before first week of July. A show cause notice was issued by the Commission under Section 43-B (4) of the KGSPR Act, 1993 to the member Galathaga Grama Panchayat asking explanation as to why the Commission shall not remove him from his membership and declare his seat vacant. An opportunity of hearing has been given to the member under this notice, that if he failed to attend in person on the day scheduled i.e., on 18-08-2017 at 11.00 AM.

action would be taken as per the provisions under the Act.

4. The State Election Commission has directed the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) to serve the notice to the Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, Grama Panchayat member in accordance with Section 306 of The KGSPR Act, 1993. PDO has informed the Commission in his letter dated: 16-08-2017, that the notice has been served on the member and has sent the acknowledgement.

5. When the case was called on 18-08-2017, the member of Grama Panchayat Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar remained absent before the Commission. The PDO, Galathaga Grama Panchayat was present and informed the Commission that the member has not been attending the meetings of Grama Panchayat almost for a year and the same has already been reported to the Executive Officer (EO), Taluk Panchayat. The case was adjourned to the next date 29-08-2017 for further enquiry.

6. The PDO, Galathaga Grama Panchayat was present before the Commission On 29-08-2017 and submitted that the member of Grama Panchayat Galathaga Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar has been elected as the member of Zilla Panchayat constituency-3 under reserved category, Belagavi District as per the notification dated: 28-03-2016. As a Grama Panchayat member he remained absent for the general body meetings of Grama Panchayat after becoming Zilla Panchayat member. The member has not even offered his resignation to the membership of Grama Panchayat and the same has been reported to Executive Officer, Chikkodi Taluk Panchayat on 30-06-2017.

7. Based on the facts submitted by the PDO Galathaga Grama Panchayat, the Commission registered the case under the Section 168(2) read with 167(2) of the KGSPR Act, 1993 which reads as follows:

People, the Council of States, the State Legislative Assembly or the State Legislative Council, or is or becomes a

Municipal Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a Councillor of a Town Panchayat, or a member of a

Taluk Panchayat or a Grama Panchayat then at the expiration of a period of fifteen days from the date of notification of

the names of the members under section 172, or as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of

commencement of term of office of a member of the House of the people, the Council of states, the State Legislative

Assembly or State Legislative Council or a Municipal Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a

Councillor of a Town Panchayat or a member of a Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat, his seat in the Zilla

Panchayat shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the House of the People, the Council of

States, the State Legislative Assembly or the State Legislative Council or the Municipal Council or the Municipal

Corporation or Town Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Grama Panchayat as the case may be.]

168. Vacancy of Seats. -(2) The 1[State Election Commission] on a report made to it and after giving a reasonable

opportunity to the person concerned of being heard shall declare whether the seat of the person concerned is or has

become vacant.

8. The PDO, Galathaga Grama Panchayat, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District has been considered as Petitioner and Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, member, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi as Respondent. The notices were issued to both the parties and the case was heard on 04-10-2017, 13-10-2017, 28-11-2017, 20-12-2017, 02-01-2018, 23-01-2018, 20-02-2018, 06-03-2018 and 20-03-2018.

9. On 04.10.2017, the Respondent Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar appeared before the Commission in person and sought time to engage an advocate in his defense and also to secure documents to produce before the Commission.

10. The Grama Panchayat PDO Sri M.S. Pimpalagavi the Petitioner in his written statement dated: 14-03-2018, states that he is working as PDO in the Galathaga Grama panchayat, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District. Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, the Grama Panchayat member, Galathaga Grama Panchayat has not tendered his resignation after becoming the member of Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi District. In the letter Dated: 09-08-2017 submitted to the Commission, PDO claims that Sri Pawar has failed to tender the resignation within 15 days from the date of notification as per the Section 167(2) of KGSPR Act, 1993, but he resigned only on 23-09-2017. The PDO after receiving the resignation letter had informed the same to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub division on 10-10-2017 and marking copies to the Executive Officer, Chikkodi Taluk Panchayat and the Tahsildar, Chikkodi Taluk for information and necessary action. He has prayed the Commission to take appropriate action against the Respondent.

11. The Respondent Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, member, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi submitted his written arguments through learned counsel Sri A.S. Naveen. It is submitted that Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar has been elected as a member of Grama Panchayat, Galathaga, Ward No.11 Bheemapurawadi, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District on 05-06-2015. Later he also got elected as the member of Zilla Panchayat reserved constituency Bhoj-33 on 23-02-2016. After being elected as a Zilla Panchayat member, he tendered his resignation to the membership of Grama Panchayat, in his resignation letter dated: 04-03- 2016 addressing to the President of the Grama Panchayat, Galathaga wherein he has obtained acknowledgement on the same day i.e., on 04-03-2016. Further, he submits that he gave a copy of resignation letter to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Chikkodi, on the same day itself and obtained acknowledgment too. The Respondent claims that the President of Taluk Panchayat belonging to B.J.P Party having suppressed the resignation letter given by him and failed to take any action on it.

12. The Respondent further submits that after receiving notice from Commission in this case, the Respondent offered the resignation letter once again that is for the second time on 23-09-2017 and obtained acknowledgment from the President Grama Panchayat. The election was conducted for the Respondent's Constituency, Bhimapurawadi, 11th ward, Galathaga Gram Panchayat and the seat was filled. Producing the death certificate of his father, he submits that after tendering his resignation to the member of Grama Panchayat on 04-03-2016, he could not take up a follow up action because he was required to manage affairs of his family, as his father suddenly fell ill, and got him admitted to the hospital at Kollapur, for a period of one and half months, but without any success as his father breathed his last on 25-04-2016. Hence, he asserts that he has submitted the resignation within 15 days as per the provision under the section 167(2) of the KGSPR Act, 1993 and obtained acknowledgement. Therefore, he prays for closing the case based on the true facts and the documents produced to authenticate his claims.

13. Both parties have lead evidence. PDO Sri Pimpalagavi examined as PW-1, documents at Ex-P1 to P6 are marked. He was cross examined by the counsel for the Respondent. The Respondent Sri Pawar got himself examined as RW-1, documents at Ex-R 1 to R 4 were marked. PDO has cross examined, the Respondent. The counsel for the Respondent has filed written arguments and PDO submitted the written statement filed by him may be taken as oral arguments, whereas counsel for Respondent addressed oral arguments in detail.

14. I have carefully perused the oral, documentary evidence and the records submitted by the parties. PDO in his written statement submits that the Respondent having resigned on 23-09-2017, well after statutory period of 15 days has violated section 167(2) of the KGSPR Act, 1993, therefore he prays for suitable action against the Respondent in accordance with law.

1. Whether the Respondent is liable to be disqualified ?

2. What Order ?

16. Answers :

1. Negative.

2. As per below order.

REASONS

17. PW-1 Sri. Pimpalagavi, the PDO, Galathaga Grama Panchayat on the basis of Ex-P1 to P6 prays for suitable action may be taken against the Respondent. In the cross examination, he pleads ignorance of the Respondent submitting resignation on 04- 03-2016 to the Panchayat and also about the Respondent submitting a copy of it to the Executive officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Chikkodi on the same day. But it is significant to note the following admission of PW-1 which reads as under:

"ನಾನು ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ನೀಡಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ದಿನಾಂಕ 23.09.2017 ರಂದು ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಗ್ರಾಮ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ರಾಜೀನಾಮೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ನಿಜ".

It is evident from the above admission by the PW-1 that the Respondent has submitted his resignation letter once again for the second time after complaint was made against the Respondent to the Commission. PW-1 has failed to prove that the Respondent had not tendered his resignation on 04-03-2016.

18. This admission in my opinion, cuts the very root of the complaint's case, that for the first time the Respondent was submitting resignation on 23-09-2017, thereby attracting a disqualification u/s 167 (2) of the KGSPR Act, 1993. PW-1 relies on Ex-P2 the resignation letter dated 23-09-2017 received by the President of Grama Panchayat, Galathaga with the signature and seal of Grama Panchayat President. There is a photograph of the Respondent snapped along with the President and other members of Grama Panchayat in the presence of PDO to show that the Respondent resigned on 23-09-2017. The Ex-P3 is the covering letter dated 10-10-2017 to show that the President of Grama Panchayat has forwarded Ex-P2 to PDO Galathaga Grama Panchayat for further needful action, whereas Ex-P4 is the letter dated 10-10-2017 to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi sub division by PDO, marking a copy to the Executive Officer, Chikkodi Taluk Panchayat informing that the resignation tendered to the President of Galathaga Grama Panchayat by the member of Bheempurawadi Ward No.11 constituency on 23-09-2017 has been accepted by the President. The copy of it was marked to Tahsildar, Chikkodi Taluk under Ex-P5 which was handed over to inward clerk of Tahsildar, Chikkodi, whereas Ex-P6 was given in person to inward clerk of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi sub division on 11-10-2017. In my opinion all the documents produced by the complainant do not assume importance in the light of admission of PW-1 referred supra.

19. The above admission of PW-1 makes me to draw an inference that RW-1 did submit his resignation letter dated 04-03-2016 and obtained acknowledgment under Ex-R1, by delivering the letter to inward clerk of Grama Panchayat Galathaga on 04-03- 2016 itself. The seal and signature of inward clerk Grama Panchayat has been marked at Ex-R1(b). Similarly, on the same day the Respondent delivered a copy of resignation letter dated 04-03-2016 to inward clerk of Taluk Panchayat, Chikkodi, and obtained acknowledgment at Ex-R2(b). The above admission of PW-1 is sufficient to impute the knowledge of original of Ex-R1, to President and PDO as well. I am therefore inclined to uphold the case of the Respondent that the resignation letter was suppressed by the President of Grama Panchayat, viewed from this angle non-examination of the President of Grama Panchayat, Galathaga is fatal because his evidence would have been crucial for proving Ex-P2 and to disprove Ex-R1.

20. Coming to oral evidence of RW-1 Sri Rajendra Ramappa Pawar, he asserts that the President of Gram Panchayat has suppressed his resignation letter dated 04-03-2016, on the ground that he is supporter of National Congress Party whereas the President Grama Panchayat belongs to B.J.P. that is the reason as to why the President has not acted in favor of the Respondent. I am of the opinion that evidence of RW-1 is probable in the light of admission of PW-1, that after he filed complaint to the Commission, the Respondent submitted his resignation letter again, which goes without saying that Ex-P2 is the second resignation and that the one submitted on 04-03-2016, is the first one. Further the assertion of RW-1 that due to death of his father on 25-04-2016, he could not pay his attention, for the developments that took place after 04-03-2016, is most probable.

So, I believe his oral evidence and death certificate of his father Ex-R3. I also draw an inference that village panchayat made efforts to be perfect this time, that after making Respondent to resign on 23-09-2017 for the second time, by producing a copy of a photograph taken along with the President and other members in presence of the PDO and annexing the same with Ex-P2.

So, I am not inclined to uphold the make believe case of the complainant, on whom burden is very heavy to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, as it is quasi-criminal proceeding.

21. It is obvious that the PW-1 has completely failed to act as per the provisions of Section 43 of the KGSPR Act, 1993, wherein after receiving the resignation letter from the member in his hand writing, addressed to the President, and if the resignation was not withdrawn within 15 days, PDO should have put up before the President to place it in the next meeting of the Grama Panchayat. Infact the PDO should have requested the President to place this resignation letter in the next meeting and get the proceedings drawn to show the acceptance of that resignation. Instead of doing so, simply forwarded the resignation to೩೭೯೬ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಗುರುವಾರ, ಜುಲೈ ೧೨, ೨೦೧೮ ಭಾಗ ೩ Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Sub division and marked the copies to the Executive Officer, Chikkodi Taluk Panchayat and Tahsildar, Chikkodi Taluk, for information, which is serious lapse on part of PDO.

22. It is significant to note that on the basis of Ex-P1 dated 29-08-2017, the Commission registered the case and issued notices to the PDO and the Respondent as well returnable by 04-10-2017. These notices were sent by RLAD to be served through CEO, Zilla Panchayat Belagavi. On 04-10-2017 PDO and the Respondent were present before the Commission. This goes without saying that the PDO had the knowledge of Court proceeding and also first hearing date of this case. However, the PDO has not informed the Commission on which date he has sent the vacancy report to the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi or to his next superior officers, Under Rule 83 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 the PDO has to report the vacancy to the Deputy Commissioner and to the State Election Commission within 7 days of arising of such vacancy. In my opinion, RW-1 has proved Ex R-1 by submitting the same to President and obtaining the seal and signature of inward clerk under Ex- R1(b), by test of probability, as we cannot expect from him a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, after lapse of 15 days, resignation takes effect making it legal and valid.

23. However, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi in his letter dated 10-11-2017 addressed to the Commission has informed the existing vacancy in the district for further necessary action. On the basis of the report received from the Deputy Commissioner, the Commission conducted by-elections to fill the vacant seats on 17-12-2017. Thereby, the said seat of Grama Panchayat, Galathaga has also been filled up.

24. In the event of this, Commission coming to a conclusion that Respondent having failed to resign within 15 days, it was required to declare the seat of Zilla Panchayat as vacant. As a consequence, Respondent would be relegated to his seat of Grama Panchayat, Galathaga. But in the present case the Respondent cannot be relegated to the said seat, because the seat has already been filled up. In such situation Respondent would lose both the seats, which is against the tenor of section 167(2) of KGSPR Act, 1993. All this has happened due to the negligence of PDO in not following the existing act and rules which tantamount to grievous misconduct.

25. In this regard it is relevant to note the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadashiva H.Patil's case, which reads as under:

The Legal Position is :

1. (2000) 8 SCC 82 = AIR 2000 SC 3044,Sadashiv H. Patil Vs Vithal D. Teke and others though rendered under Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986 (20 of 1987), Sections 3(1)(b) & 7,the Law laid down by Supreme Court, would be attracted as enumerated in para 14 of the Judgment because I am also dealing in the present case with disqualification of Respondent and to declare the said seat vacant, as such burden of proof would be very heavy upon the complainant herein.

The para no.14 Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under :

"A finding as to disqualification under the Act has the effect of unseating a person from an elected office held

by him pursuant to his victory at the polls in accordance with the democratic procedure of constituting a local

authority. The consequence befall not only him as an individual but also the constituency represented by him

which would cease to be represented on account of his having been disqualified. Looking at the penal

consequences flowing from an elected councilor being subjected to disqualification and its repercussion on

the functioning of the local body as also the city or township governed by the local body provision have to be

construed strictly. A rigorous compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules must be shown to have

taken place while dealing with a reference under section 7 of the Act".

26. In my opinion, above ruling operates against the complainant and in favor of the Respondent, who has placed a material to probabalise his case that no action was taken on his first resignation tendered on 04-03-2016. Under these circumstances, the Sadashiva Patil's case applies to the case on hand and makes me to conclude that complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent failing to resign in 15 days from the date of notification of the names of members, under Section 172 the KGSPR Act, 1993, has incurred a disqualification u/s 167(2) of KGSPR Act, 1993. So, I answer Point no.1 in the negative.

27. Point No.2 :

In the result I dismiss the complaint and pass the following order.

ORDER

Complaint dismissed.

The order is dictated, corrected and pronounced in the open court.

Dated : 17.04.2018

P.N. Sreenivasachary

Commissioner,

P.R. 507

Karnataka State Election Commission, SC-25

Bengaluru.

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು.

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಗಭೂಇ/ಉನಿತು/ಜೆ.ಕ್ರ/ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ/2018-19, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 03.07.2018

ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ತುಮಕೂರು, ಕುಣಿಗಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಮಧುಗಿರಿ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕುಗಳ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ (ಕ್ರಷರ್‌ಗಳ) ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ-2013ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶಗಳು.

ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ತುಮಕೂರು, ಕುಣಿಗಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಮಧುಗಿರಿ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕುಗಳ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ/ಗೋಮಾಳ/ಪಟ್ಟಾ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಕಲ್ಲು ಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ನಿಯಮಾವಳಿ-2013ರಂತೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತ ವಲಯಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರದೇಶ. ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಕೋಷ್ಟಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ತುಮಕೂರು, ಕುಣಿಗಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಮಧುಗಿರಿ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕುಗಳ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಲು ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ದಿನಾಂಕ: 29.06.2018ರಂದು ನಡೆದ ಸಮಿತಿ ಸಭೆಯ ತೀರ್ಮಾನದಂತೆ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಗಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ವಿಶೇಷ ಸೂಚನೆ :- ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಲ್ಲುಪುಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಘಟಕಗಳ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು ಮುಂದೆ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾದ ತೀರ್ಮಾನದ ಷರತ್ತಿಗೊಳಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

PR - 517

ಜಿಲ್ಲಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು,

SC - 25

ತುಮಕೂರು ಜಿಲ್ಲೆ, ತುಮಕೂರು.

ಮುದ್ರಣ, ಲೇಖನ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಗಳ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಲಯ

8ನೇ ಮೈಲು, ಮೈಸೂರು ರಸ್ತೆ, ಆರ್.ವಿ.ಕಾಲೇಜು ಅಂಚೆ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-560 059.

ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ

ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಡಿಪಿಎಸ್ 23(ಬಿ) ಇಎಸ್‌ಟಿ-ಎ 2016-17/732, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 28.06.2018

ವಿಷಯ :- ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ (ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ) ಆದೇಶ, 2013 ರಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮುದ್ರಣ, ಲೇಖನ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಗಳ ಇಲಾಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿನ ವಿವಿಧ ವೃಂದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಮಟ್ಟದ ವೃಂದಗಳನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿ ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್–ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶದವರಿಗಾಗಿ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸುವ ಕುರಿತು.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ :- 1. ಮುದ್ರಣ, ಲೇಖನ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಗಳ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಡಿಪಿಎಸ್/

ಇ.ಎಸ್.ಟಿ-ಎ-52/2014-15, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 20-02-2015.

2. ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಡಿಪಿಎಸ್ 73 ಇಎಸ್‌ಟಿ ಎ-2016-17, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 10.06.2016. 3. ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಡಿಪಿಎಸ್ 23 ಇಎಸ್‌ಟಿ ಎ-2016-17/1205, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 16.08.2016. 4. ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಇಡಿ 46 ಇಎಸ್‌ಡಬ್ಲ್ಯೂ 2016, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 09.03.2017. 5. ಕ.ಆ.ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಡಿ.ಪಿ.ಎಸ್ 12 ಇಎಸ್‌ಟಿ ಎ 2016-17/80, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 03.05.2018.

ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (1), (2) ಮತ್ತು (3)ರ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ (ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ) ಆದೇಶ, 2013ರ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಮುದ್ರಣ, ಲೇಖನ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ, ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಗಳ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ವೃಂದ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು ರಾಜ್ಯಮಟ್ಟದ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಇಲಾಖೆಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಕೆಲವು ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕೆಲಸದ ಹೊರೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಿ ವಿವಿಧ ವೃಂದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಇರುವ ಕೆಲವು ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಲು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವನೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು, ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (4)ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಅದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಗೆ ಮಂಜೂರಾಗಿರುವ ಒಟ್ಟು ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳ ಪೈಕಿ ವಿವಿಧ ವೃಂದಗಳ 444 ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿ ಆದೇಶಿಸಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ (5)ರ ಈ ಕಛೇರಿ ಆದೇಶದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ, ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯ ಅನುಬಂಧ-1 ಮತ್ತು ಅನುಬಂಧ-2ರಲ್ಲಿ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯಾಗುವುದರಿಂದ ಸದರಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ಯಥಾಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಮುಂದುವರೆಸಿ, ಸದರಿ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯನ್ನು ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸಿ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ (ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್-ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರವೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ) ಆದೇಶ, 2013ರ ಅಧ್ಯಾಯ 1, ನಿಯಮ 3(2)ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸಮೂಹ "ಎ" ಕಿರಿಯ ವೇತನ ಶ್ರೇಣಿ, ಸಮೂಹ "ಬಿ", ಸಮೂಹ "ಸಿ" ಹಾಗೂ ಸಮೂಹ "ಡಿ" ನಲ್ಲಿನ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ಅನುಬಂಧ– 1

ರಾಜ್ಯ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದ

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ (ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ) ಆದೇಶ, 2013ರ ಕಂಡಿಕೆ 13ರ ಆನ್ವಯ ರಾಜ್ಯಮಟ್ಟದ ಕಛೇರಿಗಳೆಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾದ ಮುದ್ರಣಾಲಯಗಳ ಸೇವೆಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವೃಂದವಾರು ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶ

'ಎ' ವೃಂದದ ಹಿರಿಯ ಶ್ರೇಣಿ ಹಾಗೂ ನಿಯೋಜನೆ ಮೂಲಕ ಭರ್ತಿಮಾಡಬಹುದಾದ ವಿವಿಧ ವೃಂದದಒಟ್ಟು 11 ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿದೆ. ಖಾಲಿ ಇರುವ ಹಾಗೂ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯಿಂದ ಹುದ್ದೆಗಳನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಕಾರಣ ಈ ಅಧಿಸೂಚನೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಹೈದ್ರಾಬಾದ್- ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆಯಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಎಂ ರವಿಶಂಕರ್

ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು

ಅನುಬಂಧ– 2

"ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ವೃಂದ"

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ (ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್-ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶಕ್ಕೆ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೀಸಲಾತಿ) ಆದೇಶ, 2013ರ ಕಂಡಿಕೆ 3ರ ಅನ್ವಯ ಹೈದರಾಬಾದ್-ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿನ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ವಿಭಾಗೀಯ ಮುದ್ರಣಾಲಯ ಕಲಬುರಗಿ ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವೃಂದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ವೃಂದವಾರು

R.N.I. No. KARBIL/2001/47147 POSTAL REGN. No. RNP/KA/BGS/2202/2017-19

Licensed to post without prepayment WPP No. 297

PR – 508

ಎಂ ರವಿಶಂಕರ್

SC - 20

ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು

ಮುದ್ರಕರು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಕಾಶಕರು:- ಸಂಕಲನಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯಪತ್ರ, ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಮುದ್ರಣಾಲಯ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು-59.