IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.678/2019 (LB-ELE) Between Smt. H.K.Narasamma Devaraju, W/o. Devaraju, Aged about 34 years, Honorary President, Bhuvanahalli Panchayath, Residing at Bhuvanahalli, Maanangi Post, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Ravi Shankar, Advocate) And 1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayath Raj, M.S. Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division, Madhugiri-572 125.
3. Bhuvanahalli Grama Panchayath, Bhuvanahalli, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer.
4. Umadevi, W/o. Ramakrishna, Aged 48 years, Bhuvanahalli, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
5. Ravindra, S/o. Huchanna, Aged about 46 years, Maanangi, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
6. Daakyanaika, S/o. Late Ayya Naika, Aged about 46 years, Maanangi Thaanda, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
7. Renukamma, W/o. Shivanna, Aged about 32 years, Bhuvanahalli, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
8. Bhagyamma, W/o. Mahalingappa, Aged about 35 years, Bhuvanahalli, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
9. Ramakrishna Naika, S/o. S.B.Mahalingaiah, Aged about 46 years, Maanangi Thaanda, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru Distict-572 139.
10. Manjula Bai M.R. W/o. Devaraju, Aged about 33 years, Maanangi Thanda, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
11. Chandrakala, Aged about 30 years, Maanangi Thanda, Maanangi Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 139.
12. Lakshmikantha. B S/o. Bodanagappa, Aged about 35 years, Butheshwaranagara, Mekeralli Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 137.
13. Lakshmi Bai W/o. Rajanayka, Aged about 35 years, Mudigere Kaval, Mekeralli Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 137.
14. Jayalakshmi P.M W/o. Bhuthesh, Aged about 40 years, Ankapura, Mekeralli Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 137.
15. Sujatha W/o. Thimmaraju, Mudigere, Mekeralli Post, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District-572 137.
16. Hanumantha Naika M.C. S/o. Chandranayka, Aged about 28 years, Mekeralli, Mekeralli Post, Sira Tuluk, Tumakuru District-572 137.
The Respondents 4 to 16 are the members of Bhuvanahalli Grama Panchayath Sira Taluk. ... Respondents (By Smt Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 and R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 26/12/2018 issued by the R-2 Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division, Madhugiri, marked as Annexure-D.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner who is the President of Bhuvanahalli Gram Panchayat, has sought to challenge the notice issued at Annexure-D, dated 26.12.2018 fixing the date of the meeting as 17.01.2019 to consider the motion of no confidence. The petitioner contends that the complaint of the members at Annexure-A, dated 20.12.2018, is one without allegations and states that the action of filing of the complaint at Annexure-A is in response to action sought to be initiated as regards respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 with respect to alleged acts of misconduct.
3. The petitioner also states that the requisite notice was not given and though he was served notice on 02.01.2019, meeting has been convened on 17.01.2019. It is also contended that motion of no confidence cannot be moved without allegations.
4. It has been held that where motion of no confidence simpliciter is moved, there is no bar for moving such motion of no confidence without allegations. This Court in W.P.Nos.124-125/2019 has clarified this aspect of the matter and held that the right of moving motion of no confidence simpliciter is permissible and has not been taken away by insertion by way of amendment of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
5. No other ground is made out assailing the notice at Annexure-A. In light of the fact that the notice at Annexure-A is in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, no ground as such, is made out for interference with the notice. Though the contention is raised as regards 15 days notice, in view of the fact that notice was received on 02.01.2019 and meeting has been convened on 17.01.2019, no prejudice as such can be said to have been caused to the petitioner.
6. No ground is made out for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Interference on technical violation by way of judicial review is a matter left to the discretion of the Court, we find no reason to interfere with the notice issued at Annexure-D, in the facts of the present case.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. As this order is passed noticing the peculiar facts of the present case, the same would not be treated as a precedent.
SMJ Sd/- JUDGE