Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were elected members of the Kalallughatta Gram Panchayat in Nelamanagala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Their membership was terminated by the State Government under Section 43-A(1)(iii) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, on the ground that they had failed to attend four consecutive meetings of the Panchayat. The impugned order dated 18.01.2020 also disqualified them from contesting future elections for a specified period. The petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the removal order and restoration of their membership. They contended that they had offered plausible explanations for their absences, which the competent authority refused to consider, acting on a literal interpretation of the provision that made removal mandatory irrespective of the reasons for absence. A coordinate bench of the same High Court in Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka had earlier held that the section does not require ascertainment of reasons for absence, but another Single Judge doubted this view and referred the question to a larger bench. The Division Bench examined the language and purpose of Section 43-A, noting that the legislature introduced the provision to ensure functionality of local bodies, but the substantive part coupled with the proviso shows that leave can be obtained or deemed. The court emphasized that the statute expressly provides for “an opportunity of being heard,” which would be rendered meaningless if plausible explanations for absence were not considered. The court invoked the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, holding that the law does not compel the performance of an act that has become impossible due to circumstances beyond the control of the person. Such circumstances could include illness, accident, detention, or other unavoidable events. The Division Bench squarely answered the reference in the negative, holding that Section 43-A(1)(iii) does not mandate automatic removal if the member shows reasonable cause for absence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, the view in Mallikarjuna was disapproved, and the petitioners were restored to their membership.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Removal of Members - Absence from Meetings - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, Section 43-A(1)(iii) - The provision for removal of a Gram Panchayat member for failure to attend four consecutive meetings does not operate rigidly; if a member shows reasonable cause for absence, the authority must consider it and not automatically remove. The literal interpretation that any absence mandates removal without regard to cause is erroneous and contrary to the legislative intent of providing an opportunity of being heard. Held that removal is not mandatory if a plausible explanation is offered (Paras 7-8). B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, Section 43-A(1) - The statutory requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the defaulting member implies that the explanation for absence must be considered. Rejecting a plausible explanation as legally inadmissible would render the hearing an empty formality. Held that the authority must evaluate the reasons for absence before ordering removal (Paras 4, 8.1). C) Law of Interpretation - Maxim - Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia - General Principle - A statutory provision that imposes a duty is not to be applied where performance becomes impossible due to circumstances beyond the person’s control, such as illness, accident, or detention. The law does not compel impossibilities, and the removal provision must be read in light of this maxim. Held that absence due to such uncontrollable events cannot be a ground for automatic removal (Paras 8.2, 8.3). D) Constitutional Law - Judicial Discipline - Conflict of Decisions - Reference to Larger Bench - Where a learned Single Judge disagreed with a coordinate bench’s interpretation of Section 43-A(1)(iii), the matter was referred to a Division Bench. Held that the view requiring consideration of reasonable cause is correct and the contrary view in Mallikarjuna is overruled (Paras 5, 6, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 43-A(1)(iii) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, contemplates disqualification of a member from the membership of the Grama Panchayath, even if reasonable cause is shown by the member for remaining absent for four consecutive meetings?
Final Decision
The Division Bench answered the reference in the negative, holding that Section 43-A(1)(iii) does not mandate automatic removal if the member shows reasonable cause for absence. The impugned order dated 18.01.2020 was set aside and the petitioners were restored to membership. The view in Mallikarjuna was disapproved.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Member cannot be removed for four consecutive absences if reasonable cause shown
- Literal interpretation cannot be applied if it leads to absurdity
- Opportunity of hearing includes consideration of explanation
- Lex non cogit ad impossibilia principle applies
