IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.1343/2019 (LB-ELE) Between:
Harisha S/o Ramesh, Aged about 42 years, Vice-President, Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Mallapura Village, Hallebedu Hobli, Rajaseriuru Post, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Chethan. B., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Panchayath Raj And Rural Development, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001, Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura Sub-Division, Sakaleshpura – 573 134, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District.
3. Hallebedu Grama Panchayath, Hallebedu – 573 216, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer.
4. Gowaramma, W/o Govindappa, Major, President Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Hallesanthe Beedhi, Taregepete, Hallebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
5. Shivaganga, W/o Thirthamalli Kaduran, Major, Member of Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Chillanayakanahalli Village, Hallebedu Hobli, Rajaseriuru Post, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
6. Mohan Kumar, S/o Malleshappa, Major, Member of Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Chillanayakanahalli Village, Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216 , Hassan District.
7. Thimmappa, S/o Kullevenkatappa, Major, Member of Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Chillanayakanahalli Village, Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216 , Hassan District.
8. Gangadhar, S/o Siddegowda, Major, Member of Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Mahavupura Village, Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
9. Kamalamma, W/o Shivanna, Major, Member of Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Kurbara Beedhi (Kariyamma Beedhi), Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216 , Hassan District.
10. Ramesh, S/o Munivenkatappa, Major, Member Hallebedu Grampanchayat, R/o Tarege Patte, Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
11. Prathima, W/o Gangadhar, Major, Member Hallebedu Grampanchayat, R/at Kalmati Beedhi, Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District, 12. Suvarna, W/o Chandrashekar, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Kurbara Beedhi (Kariyamma Beedhi), Hallebedu Hobli, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
13. Shivakumar H.K., S/o Kuddappa, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Huyala Badavane, Belur Main Road, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
14. Kala, W/o Eshwarappa, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Belur Main Road, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216. Hassan District.
15. B.B.Byregowda, S/o Charmalingagowda, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/at Basathihalli, Hegare Main Road, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216. Hassan District.
16. Kusama, W/o late Jawaraiah, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Huyallu Badavane, Rudareshwara Temple road, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
17. Nellamma, W/o Erraiah, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Holeshawara Temple Main Road, Behind Nada Kachari, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
18. Suma, W/o Venkatesh, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Huyalla Badavane, Basaveshwara Cable Networks, Halebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
19. H.K. Raju, S/o Krishnappa, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Huyalla Badavane, Basaveshwara Cable Networks, Hallebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District.
20. H.M.Ningappa, S/o Mallappa, Major, Member Hallebedu Gramapanchayat, R/o Huyallu Badavane, Basaveshwara Cable Networks, Hallebedu, Belur Taluk – 573 216, Hassan District. … Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1 & R-2; Sri Bhadrinath R., Advocate for C/R-15; Notice to R-3 to R-14 and R-16 to R-20 is Dispensed with v/o dt: 16.01.2019) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 31.12.2018 passed by the R-2 as per Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 to 14 and 16 to 20 is dispensed with, in view of the fact that matter is being disposed of in light of the settled legal position.
2. The petitioner has assailed the notice at Annexure-A dated 31.12.2018, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has convened a meeting on 17.01.2019 to consider the motion of no-confidence that has been moved by the members on 27.12.2018.
3. The petitioner contends that copy of the complaint has not been annexed to the notice and parties were not personally present before the Assistant Commissioner to present the complaint.
4. On perusal of the complaint dated 27.12.2018, it would indicate that it is a motion of no-confidence without any specific allegations and hence, it is construed to be the one under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. In so far as the contention that complaint made by the members was not annexed along with the notice in Form No.1 is concerned, the said question is no longer kept open and has been decided by this Court in the case of Ramappa vs. Assistant Commissioner Lingsur and Another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3364, this Court has held that though the annexures and documents could be submitted along with the compliant to the Assistant Commissioner, there is no obligation that the said annexures or even the complaint is to be sent by the Assistant Commissioner to the person against whom the motion of no-confidence is moved, when he issues a notice under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’). Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
5. As regards the contention that the parties were not present before the Assistant Commissioner, the said fact is denied by the learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No.15 and states that the complaint has been given in person and that in fact, the signatures have been verified and that were to be so the very fact of the said endorsement that signatures have been verified is by itself conclusive that the complaint was submitted in person. So also it is pointed out by the caveator that the said contention has not been specifically raised.
6. As the said aspect being factual in nature, this Court declines to exercise its power of judicial review. As regards the said aspect, it is even otherwise pointed out by the learned counsel for caveator that the complaint has been given by hand and necessary acknowledgment obtained, which would indicate that the said complaint is being handed over personally. There is no reason to doubt the said submission.
7. No other grounds are made as regards the violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules and noticing that the complaint is one without allegations and no other ground is made to interfere with the notice at Annexure-A dated 31.12.2018, accordingly this writ petition is dismissed in light of the above submission.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-