IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.920/2019 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN :
BHARATHI R MAJOR,MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. K.B. ONKARA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR STREET BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE CHIKMAGALURU DIST-577 228 3. HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 4. SMT VIJAYA W/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O HULIKERE VILLAGE SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548 5. SANTHOSH MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548 6. OMKARAPPA MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 7. UMESH MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 8. JAYAMMA MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 9. SAVITHA KALMARUDAPPA MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 10. JYOTHI MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548 11. MALLAMMA MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548 12. DILIP H.B MAJOR, MEMBER HULIKERE GRAM PANCHAYATH SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DIST-577 548 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI. M.H. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/03/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.40733/2018 [LB-ELE] AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.04.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This intra Court appeal is filed by the 12th respondent in the writ petition challenging order dated March 12, 2019 in W.P. No.40733/2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
3. Writ petitioner was elected as Adhyaksha of Hulikere Grama Panchayat of Kadur Taluk. A complaint was lodged by members of Grama Panchayat to the Assistant Commissioner on 25.07.2018 with a request to convene a meeting to consider ‘No Confidence’ motion. The Assistant Commissioner convened a meeting on 19.09.2018. Feeling aggrieved, writ petitioner filed the instant petition contending inter alia that the meeting was convened beyond 30 days reckoned from the date of complaint. Therefore, there was violation of Rule 3(2) of Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994(for short ‘1994 Rules’) 4. The Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that there was violation of Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules and set-aside the meeting notice and election of new Adhyaksha. It was made clear in the order that the prohibition under third proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 would not come in the way of members of Grama Panchayat making a fresh motion. Hence, this writ appeal.
5. Shri.K.B.Omkara, learned Advocate for the 12th respondent submits that the writ petitioner had no locus standi inasmuch as, the date of ‘No Confidence’ motion should not affect the petitioner in any manner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Munirathnamma Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Division1.
6. Shri.Prakash M.H., learned Advocate for writ petitioner as also the learned Government Advocate for State submitted that Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules is mandatory.
7. Shri.Prakash M.H., for the writ petitioner placing reliance on a full Bench decision of this Court in the case of C.Puttaswamy Vs. Smt.Prema and others2 submitted that while considering the provision under Section 47(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (for short ‘Zilla Parishads Act’), wherein the Assistant Commissioner was required to give 15 days’ notice, this Court has held that clear notice of 15 days is mandatory. He argued that a statutory requirement has to be followed scrupulously.
1 ILR 2007 KAR 690 2 ILR 1992 KAR 356 The Assistant Commissioner had acted clearly in violation of Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules. Thus supporting the impugned order, he prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
9. Shri.Prakash M.H., learned Advocate for the writ petitioners is right in his contention that a full Bench of this Court in C.Puttaswamy’s case, has held that the period of 15 days mentioned in Zilla Parishads Act is mandatory. Further, it is recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge that in view of the decision in W.As. No.5159-5160/1998, there has been violation of Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules.
10. It is settled that the time schedule/time limit prescribed in the statute is sacrosanct and it must be adhered in letter and spirit. It is settled that where a statute requires a certain act to be done in a certain manner, it must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.
11. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice beyond 30 days. Therefore, we find no error in the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge and we are at one with him.
Resultantly this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.1/19 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE SPS Sd/- JUDGE