Karnataka Gram Panchayat Act | No Show Cause Notice For Removal Of Member Over Failure To Annually Disclose Assets U/S 43B: High Court

The Karnataka High Court has declared that no show-cause notice is required to be issued to a defaulting member of a Gram Panchayat under Section 43B(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 when there is no assets/liabilities declaration filed by him. Similarly, no hearing is required to be given before passing an order of removal from the office.

Section 43B stipulates that 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 before the state election commission.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Only when there is a cause shown in the late filing of the declaration and/or when the declaration is found to be false, would an opportunity of hearing be required to be given.”

Lalitabai Patil who was elected to the Mogha (K) Gram Panchayat in the 2020 elections had approached the court questioning the order issued by the State Election Commission in 2022, disqualifying and removing her from office on account of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 43B of the Act.

The petitioner argued since there is no show cause notice or enquiry held before such disqualification the impugned order is required to be set aside. In terms of Section 43B(4), a hearing has to be provided before such declaration is made, it was argued. Petitioner added there may be delay in complying with Section 43B but the same is curable and as such, the powers under Section 43B(4) of the Act ought not to have been exercised.

The authorities opposed the plea saying a notice was issued and served upon the petitioner despite which there was no reply nor were the information furnished. Having waited for about a month, the impugned order was passed.

The bench noted that the declaration of the results having occurred on December 30, 2020 and the first meeting having held on January 18, 2021 when all the members were sworn, it was but required that within three months from the said meeting the declaration in terms of Section 43B(1) of the Act was filed.

The same not having been filed, a notice came to be issued in December 2021 categorically stating that the documents have not been received and calling upon the petitioner to submit the documents by January 15, 2022 by online mode and if the declaration was not supplied by that date, necessary action would be taken.

Referring to Section 43B the bench said, “There is an obligation which has been imposed on the members of the Panchayat to submit a declaration within a period of three months from the date of assuming office. The only exception made is by proviso to Section 43B(1) of the Act, if the term commences before two months of end of the financial year, such declaration could be filed within two months after the commencement of the financial year i.e., in such cases, the time period of four months is granted to file the declaration thereby extending the time period by one month. Other than this extension, there is no particular exemption, which is available to any of the members.”

In the present case, it noted, the petitioner was required to file the declaration by April 18, 2021 and after nearly a period of 10 months from the date on which the declaration was originally due, the impugned order came to be passed.

Noting that Section 43A (Removal of members) and Section 43B of the Act cannot be said to be in pari materia and/or relating to similar kinds of defaults, the bench said “Section 43A of the Act deals with serious allegations made against the member of misconduct in discharge of duties or disgraceful conduct, incapable of performing of duties, persistently remiss in performing duties, medically unfit, insolvency or of unsound mind, etc. These are all issues which are required to be established after giving an opportunity to the delinquent member in as much as there being allegations which are made against such delinquent members.”

It added, “In the present case, there being a statutory obligation on a member to file a declaration of movable and immovable assets and liabilities of more than two lakhs owned by him/her or members of his/her joint family within two months of assuming office, if the same were not to be filed, then the question of providing a hearing would not arise. A hearing can only be provided if cause is shown for belated filing.”

Junking the contention of the petitioner that due to Covid-19 pandemic the declaration could not be filed, the bench said, “The petitioner being a member of a Gram Panchayat, cannot claim covid pandemic as an excuse when all elected members and government officials are functioning. Be that as it may, a notice was issued by respondent No.1 on 31.12.2021 providing an opportunity to the petitioner to file a declaration on an online mode which was also not utilised by the petitioner.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Lalitabai Patil And The Commissioner, Karnataka State Election Commission & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200760 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Date of Order: 20-06-2023

Appearance: Advocate S S Halalli for Petitioner.

Advocate Amresh S Roja for R1.

Advocate Krupasagar Patil for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order