IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.33531 OF 2018 [LB-RES] Between:
Smt K.Uma W/o Basavaraj, Aged 35 years R/at:Nandibevoor Village, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
(By Sri.Prakash M.H, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayath Raj, M.S.Building, Ambedkar Street, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Harapanahalli Sub-division, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District-583 131.
3. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District-583 131.
……Petitioner 4. Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131. Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer 5. M.Parameshwarappa Age:Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
6. Basavaraj Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
7. Smt.Rajabee, Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
8. Smt.C.Sharadamma Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
9. Smt.D.Basamma Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
10. Smt.T.Ratnamma Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
11. Smt.P.Gangamma Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
12. Smt.T.Savitha Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
13. N.Shivappa, Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
14. K.Jagadeesh Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
15. Smt.M.Gayathri Age: Major Member, Nandibevoor Gram Panchayath, Harapanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District-583 131.
... Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 and R2; R3 to R15 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the meeting notice dated 25.07.2018 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G as illegal and consequently declare the motion of no confidence dated 18.07.2018 made by respondent No.5 to 15 against petitioner, vide annexure-F as illegal.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who was the Adhyaksha of Nandibevoor Gram Panchayat has challenged the notice dated 25.07.2018 issued by respondent No.2 convening a meeting to consider motion of no confidence moved by the members. The admitted facts being the motion of no confidence that was earlier moved had come up for consideration on 17.03.2018 and due to absence of quorum on the said date, proceedings of the meeting were suspended. The members by representation dated 18.07.2018 while putting forth the relevant facts have sought for reconvening of a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence that was moved previously. It is on the basis of this representation dated 18.07.2018 the notice came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening meeting on 03.08.2018. It is stated that pursuant to the notice at Annexure-G, motion of no confidence came to be passed and that further vacancy that arose as regards to the post of Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat was also filled up by the election and 5th respondent came to be elected as Adhyaksha on 05.09.2018. It is to be noted that this Court while considering the plea for grant of interim relief has observed as follows:
“Any further proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 25.7.2018 as per Annexure-G fixing the date of no confidence motion today i.e. on 03.08.2018 at 11.30.am. is always subject to result of the writ petition”.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 03.08.2018, the motion of no confidence came to be passed and the petitioner was removed from the post of Adhyaksha. The petitioner moved the matter once again on 04.09.2018 and had sought for appropriate orders as the election of Adhyaksha was slated on 05.09.2018. This Court has observed that the proceedings including that of the election to the post of Adhyaksha were all subject to the result of the writ petition. It would be appropriate to extract the order dated 04.09.2018 which reads as follows:
“It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that meeting for election of Adhyaksha for the paanchayath will be held tomorrow i.e., 05.09.2018 and if meeting is permitted to be carried on, petitioner would be compelled to implead him/her in the present proceedings. This Court by order dated 03.08.2018 was pleased to order that the result of the No Confidence Motion to be held on 03.08.2018 at 11.30 am is subject to result of the writ petition.
In that view of the matter, it is needless to say that consequential and further actions to the No Confidence Motion would be subject to the out come of the writ petition”.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2018 as there was no prohibition as such as regards the election of Adhyaksha, the election was held and the 5th respondent was elected as per the proceedings on 05.09.2018. The matter was taken up for final disposal and the primary contention of the petitioner on the merits of the matter is that the representation at Annexure-F could not have been taken note of by the Assistant Commissioner and be acted upon. The counsel for the petitioner states that when once the meeting could not be held due to absence of quorum the notice itself shall lapse. It is pointed out that as per Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakhsa of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for short) in the absence of quorum the meeting would stand dissolved and a notice given under Sub Rule (1) shall lapse. Hence, it is submitted that the members ought to have moved a fresh motion of no confidence and their request as per Annexure-F to convene fresh meeting by relying on Sections 50, 52 and 53 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) is not legally tenable. It is contended that the question of re-convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence submitted earlier is not legally tenable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The other respondents are served but have remained unrepresented.
5. The motion of no confidence moved on an earlier occasion had come up for consideration on 17.03.2018. It is not disputed that the meeting did not conduct any business as a result of lack of quorum. This is borne out from copy of the proceedings at Annexure-E. The proceedings of the meeting could not take place and it is clear that it was due to lack of quorum. It is clear as per Rule 3(6) of the Rules that the meeting stood dissolved and the notice given under Sub Rule (1) had lapsed. If that were to be so, the members were at liberty to move the fresh motion of no confidence. Their effort to re-convene a meeting to consider the earlier complaint does not arise. Strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules is mandated. If that were to be so as per Rule 3(1) of the Rules, the motion of no confidence moved would have to be accompanied with a written notice of intention in Form No.1 and in the present case in the absence of fresh complaint, earlier complaint could not have been taken note of especially in the light of the mandate under Rule 3(6) of the Rules which says that notice given under Sub Rule (1) would lapse.
6. In the light of the above contention, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have taken note of the representation at Annexure-F which was not in the requisite format. The request of other members that meeting could be convened by placing reliance on Sections 50, 52 and 53 of the Act cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that a separate specific procedure and the rules relating to motion of no-confidence has been provided under Section 49 of the Act and the general provision relating to convening of meeting under other circumstances cannot be resorted to. In the light of unambiguous observation made by this Court making the proceedings of motion of no confidence subject to the result of the petition. Hence, election for the post of Adhyaksha is also subject to the orders to be passed in the writ petition. All proceedings are subject to the orders to be passed.
7. In the light of the discussion made above, notice at Annexure-G is set aside. The consequential proceedings relating to the motion of no confidence as well as election of 5th respondent are set aside. Taking note of the observations made in orders dated 03.08.2018 and 04.09.2018, the election of 5th respondent is set aside. Consequently, petitioner stands restored as Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat. Petition is disposed of.
However, it is made clear that the members of Gram Panchayat are at liberty to move fresh motion of no-confidence, if the same is permissible under Section 49 of the Act and the proceedings relating to the motion of no-confidence will not operate as a bar to initiate fresh proceedings.
In view of the disposal of the matter, no further orders are required on I.A.No.2/2018. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2018 is disposed as having become redundant.
Sd/- JUDGE UN