IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.7729/2019 (LB-ELE) Between:
Smt. Jothi W/o H. S. Ramesh Aged about 35 years President Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Abhinav R., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Sakleshpur Sub Division Hassan District Sakleshpur – 573134.
3. Hethur Grama Panchayath Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
4. Smt. Mahadevamma Upadyaksha Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
5. Sri. H. M. Ajith Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
6. Sri. Krishnappa Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
7. Sri. H. N. Thamaiah Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
8. Sri. H. T. Ramesha Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
9. Sri. H. K. Shivashankar Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
10. Smt. Rathana Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
11. Smt. Gowramma Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123.
12. Smt. Bhagya Member Grama Panchayat Hethur Sakleshpur Taluk Hassan District Hethur – 573123. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP fro R-1 & R-2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-A namely the notice dated 01.02.2019 issued by respondent No.2 in the present writ petition by allowing the present petition and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 01.02.2019 at Annexure-A, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has convened the meeting on 19.02.2019 to consider the Motion of No-Confidence moved by the members.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate, after instruction, has furnished the copy of the complaint. Perusal of the said complaint, indicates that motion of no-confidence is one without allegations as contemplated under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘Act’ for short). There is no grievance as regards non-adherence to Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (the ‘Rules’ for short).
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate asserts that the stipulations as regards notice are in accordance with mandate of the Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the members ought to have moved the motion of no- confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 12.10.2018 has observed at paragraph 40 as follows:
“Else, the general right of the members to move a motion of no confidence without stating any reason, per sub-section (1), was neither intended to be taken away nor has been taken away. This, in our view, is the only appropriate way of interpreting the provisions as existing, particularly looking to the purport and object thereof”.
6. In the light of the said observations, it is clear that the members are at liberty to move a Motion of No Confidence simplicitor or without any allegations as contemplated under Section 49(1) or with allegations as contemplated under Section 49(2) of the Act. In the present case, motion of no-confidence moved simplicitor or without any allegations is permissible and without there being any violation of procedure prescribed as per the Rules, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there has to be strict adherence to procedure in the meeting wherein motion of no-confidence is put up for consideration. Needless to state that the Assistant Commissioner is to ensure that procedure prescribed under the Rules and law applicable would be in adhered to, in the meeting to be conducted by him.
Sd/- JUDGE KA/-