Chowdappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and ors.

(a) constitution of india - article 243 d - reservation of seats in every panchayat under - held - reservation is provided for to give effect to constitutional mandate as in section 243-d of constitution of india - the provisions of section 44 of the panchayat raj act are to give effect to this constitutional provision and it will have to be given effect to in the manner so provided and not in any other manner.;(b) karnataka panchayat raj act, 1993 - sub-section 4 of section 48 - disqualification for contesting the election under. held - in so far as the analogy to the provisions of sub-section 4 of section 48 is concerned, a disqualification is one which is a serious matter and can be attached to a person only in the manner provided for by law and not by a process of interpretation and analogy. a person who has not suffered any such disqualification under the statutory provisions cannot be held to be a person who has incurred a disqualification by resort to a process of interpretation or by extending analogy.; writ petition dismissed. - section 3 & notaries rules, 1956, rule 13(12)(b): [ashok b. hinchigeri, j] power to appoint notaries - petitioner a notary - during course of notarisation on an affidavit signature of deponent not put on it government removed petitioner from post of notary- held, however, as noticed the petitioner has honestly owned up his mistakes. the confession is made at the earliest point of time. there has been no charges of allegations of corruption, fabrication of documents or of moral turpitude on the part of the petitioner. considering all these aspects of the matter, the court finds that the punishment of his removal from the post of notary is disproportionately high. impugned order was set aside and government was asked to pass a fresh and minor punishment order within an outer limit of one month......which attaches to a person in terms of section 48 of the karnataka panchayatraj act, 1993. 4. however, learned counsel concedes that as of now, 6th respondent has not suffered any statutory disqualification but the principle imbedded in sub-section 4 of section 48 may be extended to a situation where an adhyaksha is removed by a motion of no confidence also and if so, the person may be disqualified from contesting to the post of adhyaksha by seeking re-election.5. so far as the reservation aspect is concerned, reservation is provided for to give effect to constitutional mandate as in section 243-d of the constitution of india. the provisions of section 44 of the panchayatraj act are to give effect to this constitutional provision and it will have to be given effect to in the manner so provided and not in any other manner. if the reservation is in favour of a particular category for a term that should be provided and not reduced or curtailed only because the person occupying the post is removed by loss of confidence of the members. till the expiry of the period, the post will have to be earmarked for the person belonging to particular reserved category. other situations cannot be worked into this position.6. in so far as the analogy to the provisions of sub-section 4 of section 48 is concerned, a disqualification is one which is a serious matter and can be attached to a person only in the manner provided for by law and not by a process of interpretation and analogy. a person who has not suffered any such disqualification under the statutory provisions cannot be held to be a person who has incurred a disqualification by resort to a process of interpretation or by extending analogy. if the situation appears to be either incongruous or can lead to stalemates and dead locks it is for the legislature to take note of the same and provide a way out by ushering in new laws to remedy the situation.7. neither contention on behalf of the petitioner is acceptable. in.....