Judgment:
(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 22.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A.)
1. The Panchayat Development Officer, i2th Heggunje Grama Panchayat, Udupi Taluk and District - 2nd respondent, had submitted a complaint dated 18.12.2012 to the 1st respondent, requesting to take action against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was continuously absent for four meetings of the Panchayat held on 01,09,2012, 29.09.2012, 02.11.2012 and 04.12.2012. Acting on the said complaint, the 1st respondent having issued notice to the petitioner for appearance and enquiry and the petitioner having filed statement of objections dated 01.06.2013, after holding an enquiry, the 1st respondent having passed an order dated 22.11.2013, as at Annexure-A, declaring that the seat held by the petitioner be deemed to have fallen vacant, this writ petition was filed to quash Annexure-A.
2. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned advocate., contended that due to ill health,, the petitioner did not attend the meeting held from 01.09.2012. He submitted that the meeting notice dated 25=08.2012 shows 01.09.2012 to be Wednesday, though 01.09.2012 was a Saturday. He submitted that the petitioner suffered from jaundice and took treatment under 'Nati Vydyaru.' He further submitted that, despite the admission of the mistake by the 2nd respondent with regard to the meeting notice dated 25.08.2012 showing Wednesday instead of Saturday i.e., 01,09.2012, the order passed being arbitrary and illegal interference is called for.
3 Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned advocate for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner having absented himself for more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat, without the grant of leave by the Grama Panchayat, a complaint dated 18.12.2012 having been submitted by the 2nd respondent, after issue of notice to the petitioner and after holding of enquiry by following principle of natural justice, the order as at Annexure-A has been passed and hence, no interference with the finding of fact recorded therein, which having not been shown to be either perverse or illegal, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is impermissible i.e., by applying the well settled principles of law in catena of decisions of the Apex Court.
4. Perused the writ record. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocates on both sides, the question that arises for my determination is, whether the order, as at Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent suffers from any legal infirmity, calling for interference?
5. The 2nd respondent had submitted a complaint dated 18.12.2012, against the petitioner, to the 1st respondent. In response to a notice issued under S.13(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed statement of objections dated 01.06.2013 vide Annexure-B. The petitioner has not denied his absence from the meetings of the Panchayat held on 01.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 02.11.2012 and 04.12.2012. He has stated that his absence was not intentional and was due to he being unwell and that a Doctor had advised him to take bed rest. The 1st respondent having conducted enquiry, the 2nd respondent has deposed and has produced the relevant records with regard to the meetings of the Panchayat held on the aforesaid dates. Despite opportunity granted, the petitioner has not adduced rebuttal evidence. There being no dispute with regard to the absence of the petitioner in the meetings of the Panchayat held on the aforesaid dates and he having stated that the absence was not intentional and was due to bonafide reasons, has not discharged the burden by either deposing personally or by producing any other witness before the 1st respondent.
6. A perusal of Clause (c), under Sub-S.(l) of S.13 of the Act, makes it clear that if a member of Grama Panchayat absents himself for more than three consequent ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat, without the leave of the Grama Panchayat, his seat shall be deemed to be or to have become, as the case may be, vacant. The proviso thereunder has no application, since,, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had made an application for leave to absent himself and the Gi*ama Panchayat failed to inform of its decision on the application, within a period of one month from the date of application and hence, the leave applied is deemed to have been granted by the Panchayat. Sub-S.(2) of S.13 of the Act has conferred the jurisdiction on the 1st respondent to decide the question as to whether the member of the Panchayat is or has become subjected to disqualification under Sub.S(l). The 1st respondent having received the report from the 2nd respondent, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, has decided the question.
7. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, was unable to point out any material, placed on record of the 1st respondent, having been omitted from consideration or the finding recorded in Annexure-A being perverse.
8. In judicial review, the Coutt is not so much concerned with the decision itself as such as with the decision making process, in as much as, the exercise of power of judicial review does not enable the Court to substitute its judgment for that of the competent authority i.e., as to the matters within its province. The examination should be confined to find out whether the finding on facts and / or law recorded, is based on the evidence brought on record and whether such finding is consistent with the settled principles of law.
9. In the case of DHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. Vs. STATE OF SAURASHTRA AND OTHERS, AIR 1957 SC 264, Apex Court has held that the decision of a Tribunal on a question of fact, which it has jurisdiction to determine, is not liable to be questioned in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless it is shown to be totally unsupported by any evidence.
10. In catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that in exercising the writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings and order passed by a competent authority / Tribunal, as long as the finding of fact is based on some material, which is relevant.
11. In the order dated 22.11.2013, as at Annexure-A, the 1st respondent, on examination of evidence adduced before it, has recorded findings with reference to the evidence brought on its record. The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of the stand taken in the statement of objections dated 01.06.2013, filed in response to the notice served on him, under £.13(2) of the Act,. No evidence was adduced by the petitioner to show the bonafide reasons for his absence in the Panchayat meetings held on 01.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 02.11.2012 and 04.12.2012. The evidence of the 2nd respondent being consistent with the exhibited documents, the 1st respondent having discussed the evidence, has recorded the findings. The appreciation of evidence by the 1st respondent, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.
12. The 1st respondent has not committed procedural error. Principles of natural justice has been followed, since, the petitioner had reasonable opportunity of hearing before the 1st respondent. The impugned order having been passed with reference to the evidence on record, the 1st respondent has not committed any material error or illegality so as to call for interference with the order as at Annexure-A.
In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.