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.11073 OF 2019 [LB-RES] Between:
Smt.Mala M.C W/o Channakeshwara, Aged about 36 years, R/o S.Mallapura Village, H.Gopagondanahalli Post, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District.
…Petitioner (By Sri.Chandrakanth R.Patel, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, By its Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Davanagere Sub Division, Davanagere – 577 001.
3. H Gopagondanahalli Grama Panchayat H Gopagondanahalli, Honnali Taluk – 577 217, Davanagere District.
Represented by President.
... Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 and R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 22.02.2019 written by the member of the Grama Panchayat to respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner who is the President of the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-B dated 14.03.2019 as the date convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence that has been moved by the members.
2. The only contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that despite absence of any allegations, complaint has been made to the Assistant Commissioner and in the light of such complaint no motion of no confidence ought to have been entertained. It is further contended that provision of Seciton 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) would be rendered redundant, if the motion of no confidence is moved without making any allegations. No other ground has been made out to assail the validity of the notice at Annexure-B as regards the voilation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1994.
3. It is clear that there is no prohibition to move the motion of no confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act and there is no obligation on the members to move the motion only with allegations in terms of Section 49(2) of the Act. In fact, the Division Bench in W.A.No.844/2018 in the case of Lakshmamma V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in 2019(1) KLJ Page 94 has clearly held that a question of moving the motion of no confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act is impermissble till appropriate rules are framed. It is further made clear that at paragraph 40 that the right of members to move a motion of no confidence without stating any reason is not taken away. In the light of the said legal position, the contention of the petitioner that motion of no confidence must be moved only with allegations cannot be accepted. In fact, Sections 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act operate in different spheres and after the first 30 months, members are at liberty to move the motion of no confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act without making any allegations. In the light of the legal position and also that the petitioner has not made the other members of the Gram Panchayat as parties to the petition and in the absence of any voilation of the rules, petition is dismissed.
Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance within ten days.
Sd/- JUDGE UN