IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.29574 OF 2019 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN:
KRISHNA REDDY P R, S/O DEVAREDDY RAMAREDDY, AGED 53 YEARS, K PATHUR, YARAMVARIPALLY VILLAGE, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563134. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH C M, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563134.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563134.
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, YARAMVARIPALLY VILLAGE, SRINIVASPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563134. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M A SUBRAMANI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.07.2019 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
02. It is the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, pursuant to motion of no confidence proposed by the requisite number of members meeting was convened on 26.06.2019. That the said meeting was challenged before this Court on the premise that 15 days clear notice has not been issued. The earlier writ petition i.e., W.P. No.26967-68/2019 was listed on 26.06.2019, the day the meeting was proposed and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to be present to explain the omission in conducting the meeting in accordance with the Rules. As the Assistant Commissioner was present before the Court on the direction of the Court, the meeting that was convened on the said date stood postponed. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to submit his explanation. The Assistant Commissioner submitted his explanation stating the circumstances that led to the imbroglio leading to the intervention of the Court. This Court, after going through the explanation offered by the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to accept the same and disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.1 to convene the meeting in terms of the proviso to sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3. The Assistant Commissioner has been summoned by the Court and the Assistant Commissioner in compliance having appeared before this Court, the same ought to be construed as a Court ordered intervention of the said proceedings. The proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, reads as under:
“(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II:
Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.
03. The petition preferred and canvassed on the ground that the meeting notice dated 06.07.2019 is issued prior to the order being released by the Court. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner was present when the order was dictated in the open Court. In that view of the matter the said contention requires to be rejected. The further contention is that the Government has issued Circular directing the Assistant Commissioner not to conduct meetings. Copy of the Government proceedings dated 25.01.2019 is placed before this Court. On a reading, it is apparent that the said proceedings is issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench, wherein the Division Bench has observed that no confidence motion under sub-Section (2) of Section 49 cannot be held unless and until the Government frames appropriate Rules for the conduct of such meetings. In that view of the matter, the said contention cannot bar the Assistant Commissioner to conduct no confidence motion under sub-Section (1) of Section 49.
04. The petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ