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.56183/2018 (LB-ELE) Between:
K.P.Basavarajappa S/o Siddanagowda Aged about 60 years Occ: Adhyaksha Kanchikere Gram Panchayat R/at Kanchikeri Village Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District – 583 125 ... Petitioner (By Sri. Dhiraj Kumar.K., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Department of Panchayat Raj And Rural Development Rep. by its Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 2. Asst. Commissioner Harappanahalli Sub-Division Harappanahalli Davanagere District – 583 131 3. Kanchikere Grama Panchayat Rep. by its Panchayat Development Officer Kanchikere Village Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District – 583 125 4. T. Anjanappa Age; Major 5. Angadi Anusuyamma Age; Major 6. G.S.Pushpavathi Age; Major 7. M. Basavaraj Age; Major 8. P. Shantha Age; Major 9. B. Maruthi Age; Major 10. B. Kalamma Age; Major 11. C. Prema Age; Major 12. Aravind K.B Age; Major 13. A. Channappa Age; Major 14. C.Padmavathi Age; Major 15. M. Hanumamma Age; Major 16. M. Annappa Age; Major 17. Ganganarasa Nagaraj Age; Major 18. T. Nagamma Age; Major 19. M. Prashant Age; Major 20. Parvathamma Age; Major 21. Bhovi Chandrappa Age; Major 22. H. Gangamma Age; Major 23. Bhoja Naik Age; Major 24. B. Ningamma Age; Major 25. Manjamma Age; Major 26. P. Basavaraj Age; Major Respondent Nos.4 to 26 are all Members, Kanchikere Gram Panchayat Kanchikere Village Harappanahalli Taluk Davanagere District – 583 125 ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 and R2 Sri. N.R.Jagadeeshwara, Advocate for R3 Sri. Suhas.B.Sappannavar, Advocate for R4 to R22) Vide Order dated 16.01.2019, notice to R23 to R26 is dispensed with This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside notice dated 10.12.2018 issued by respondent No.2 vide annexure-C calling upon the petitioner to be present in meeting convened on 29.12.2018 at 12.30 PM in the Kenchikere Grama Panchayat office to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner holding the same to be illegal and arbitrary and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is the President of Kanchikere Grama Panchayat, Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District, has challenged the notice at Annexure-C dated 10.12.2018, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has convened a meeting on 29.12.2018 to consider the motion of no-confidence that has been moved by the members.
2. Sri. Suhas B. Sappannavar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.4 to 22 in all fairness states that the complaint made by the members was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 22.11.2018 and the meeting sought to be convened is on 29.12.2018 which is beyond the period of 30 days and hence, states that prima facie, the present motion of no- confidence cannot be proceeded with.
3. In light of 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’), it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner is required to fix the date for considering the motion of no-confidence, not later than 30 days from the date on which the complaint has been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner.
4. In view of the fact that the complaint is submitted on 22.11.2018, there is a clear violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules. It is also settled legal position of law that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the Rules is mandatory.
5. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the notice at Annexure-C dated 10.12.2018 is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the members who are arrayed as respondents herein to move a fresh motion of no-confidence in accordance with law and procedure. If such motion of no-
confidence is moved, the Assistant Commissioner to ensure that the procedure contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the Rules and Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 is adhered to strictly without giving any room for lapse, in light of the fact that earlier motion of no-confidence has failed in light of lapse by the Assistant Commissioner.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-