IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No. 51426/2019 (LB-ELE) Between:
Smt. Muddahanumamma, Wife of Sri Konnaraiah, Aged about 60 years, Adhyaksha (President), Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130. … Petitioner (By Sri Nagaiah, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru Sub-Division, Tumakuru – 572 101.
3. Sri G. Srinivasa, Son of Late Gangaiah, Aged about 33 years, Upadhyaksha (Vice-President), Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
4. Sri Satish, Son of Mariyanna, Aged about 35 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
5. Sri K.R. Harish, Son of Benki Ramaiah, Aged about 32 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
6. Smt. Shanthamma, Wife of Rangaswamy, Aged about 30 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
7. Smt. Kumari, Wife of Gangaiah, Aged about 35 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
8. Sri S.P. Dayanand, Son of Late Paramashivaiah, Aged about 42 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
9. Smt. Netravathi, Wife of Manjunath, Aged about 30 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
10. Smt. Yashodhamma, Wife of Nagaraju, Aged about 38 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
11. Sri G.D. Narayana, Son of Doddashanaiah, Aged about 45 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
12. Smt. Ningamma, Wife of Late Anandaiah, Aged about 60 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
13. Sri Shekar, Son of Shanaiah, Aged about 43 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
14. Smt. Venkatalakshmamma, Wife of Chandrappa, Aged about 55 years, Member, Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat, Kothagere Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130.
… Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2; Notice to R3 – R14 is dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice issued by R-2 dated 16.11.2019 served on the petitioner on 20.11.2019 vide Annexure-C and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Petitioner had been elected as the member of Teradakuppe Grama Panchayat against the vacancy reserved for scheduled caste women and thereafter was elected to the post of Adhyaksha.
3. Petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-C notifying 03.12.2019 as the date for consideration of motion of no confidence moved on the basis of the complaint by the members.
4. It is not in dispute that the motion of no confidence is on the basis of the complaint without any allegations and this is made clear by the averments at paragraph Nos.3 and 9 of the petition. Petitioner submits that the notice is required to be set aside on the ground that along with notice there is no communication of the proposed motion/complaint. It is further submitted that as the post of Adhyaksha is reserved for the category of scheduled caste woman, no purpose would be served by permitting the motion of no confidence to be considered.
5. It is noticed that question of non-furnishing of copy of complaint along with notice would not be fatal to the motion of no confidence and this Court in the case of Smt. MANJULA v. STATE OF KARNATKA AND OTHERS - 2014(5) KCCR 1187 has held that non-affixing the complaint could not be an irregularity so as to vitiate the motion of no confidence. This Court in the case of INAYATH PASHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.No.56209/2018 has considered the scenario where the post of Adhyaksha has been reserved and has noted that mere removal by a motion of no confidence could not be a bar for the elected candidate removed pursuant to the motion of no confidence to again stand for election. However, it is to be noted that this contention need not be addressed as it is premature at this stage as the motion of no confidence is still to be passed. It is also a settled position of law that a motion of no confidence simpliciter without any allegations is permissible under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
6. Accordingly, as no case is made out as regards the violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 (2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and no other ground is made out, petition is dismissed.
No notice is required as regards the members of Grama Panchayat as the petition is being dismissed in light of the settled legal position.
Sd/- JUDGE VP