IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.12840 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt. Mahadevi W/o Balakrishna, Aged about 32 years, The Adhyaksha of Doddahejjuru Grama Panchayath, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105. …Petitioner (By Sri. Srinivasa D.C., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayath Raj Department, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Hunsuru Sub-Division, Hunsuru Town & Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
3. The Panchayath Development Officer Doddahejjuru Grama Panchayath, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
4. Sri. Manjunatha S/o late Erappa, Aged about 35 years, 5. Sri. Gejje S/o late Mattaiah, Aged about 50 years, 6. Smt. Jayalakshmi W/o Swaminaika, Aged about 45 years, Respondent Nos.4 to 5 are R/at Kolavige Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
7. Sri. M.S. Subhash S/o Shivanna, Aged about 45 years, 8. Smt. Renuka W/o Chikkeeraiah, Aged about 35 years, Respondent Nos.7 & 8 are R/at Mudaganuru Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
9. Sri. D.K. Nagesh S/o late Kempaiah, Aged about 32 years, Doddahejjuru Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
10. Smt. Honnamma W/o Rajappa, Aged about 40 years, R/at Kappana Katte Hadi, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
11. Smt. Lakshmi W/o late Siddaraj, Aged about 40 years, 12. Sri. Magesh S/o late Basavaiah, Aged about 45 years, 13. Sri. Mahadeva S/o Moganna, Aged about 50 years, 14. Smt. Parvathamma W/o Shekhara, Aged about 40 years, Respondent Nos.11 to 14 are R/at Bharatavadi Hadi, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 105.
...Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, AGA for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 13.03.2019 calling all the Grama Panchayath Members for the general meeting on ‘No Confidence’ motion against he petitioner/the Adhyaksha of the Doddahejjuru Grama Panchayath to be held on 29.03.2019 at 11.00 am, in the office of the Doddahejjuru Grama Panchayath, vide Annexure-D as void, illegal and unconstitutional.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner who is the Adhyaksha of the Doddahejjuru Grama Panchayath, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru District, has challenged the notice at Annexure-D, whereby respondent No.2 has convened the meeting of the members on 29.03.2019 to consider the complaint made by the members of the Grama Panchayath. Copy of the complaint has been produced at Annexure-C and it is clear that the motion of no-confidence that is proposed to be moved is one simplicitor as contemplated under Section 49(1).
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no violation of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (the ‘Rules’ for short) and it is also seen that there are no grounds that have been urged regarding the violation of Rule 3 of the above rules in the present case. The only contention of the petitioner is that motion of no-confidence is permissible only under Section 49 (2) of the Karnataka Grama Panchayath Raj Act, in the light of the non-obstante Clause that is present in Section. Hence, it is contended that insertion of Section 49(2) imposes restrictions on the members of the Grama Panchayath on their rights to move motion of no-confidence could be only with specific allegations as contemplated under Section 49(2). No other contention is urged so as to impugn the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. It is to be noted that the power to move the motion of no-confidence can be traced under Section 49 and can be moved either by making allegations in the manner as contemplated under Section 49(2) or without making allegations as contemplated under Section 49(1). It is made clear and it is settled position that bar against moving the motion of no-confidence within the first 30 months is subject to Section 49(2) that is motion of no- confidence can be moved even within the period of first 30 months by moving a motion of no-confidence with allegations. Admittedly, the motion of no-confidence that is moved is beyond the period of 30 months. The contention of the petitioner that non-obstante Clause of Section 49(2) would make it clear that a motion of no confidence can be moved only if allegations are made has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2019 (1) KLJ 94. The Court at para 40 where it is clearly stated that the power to move motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) is not taken away and the insertion of Section 49(2) was only to provide an additional right to the members of Grama Panchayath to move a motion of no-confidence on specific allegations irrespective of the moratorium periods.
The Court has clearly observed:
“40. 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”.
In the light of the above law laid down, there are no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he is permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM