IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION No.6605/2019 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN SMT. PADMAVATHI JAYARAM W/O B V JAYARAM AGED 35 YEARS, BYRAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, MOTAGONDANAHALLI (P.O) 562127 MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI N K RAMESH, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA (POST) RAMANAGARA DIST-562159 3. MOTAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHYAT MOTAGONDANAHALLI-562 127 MAGADI TQ., RAMANAGARA DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
4. SHRI. VENKATASWAMY B.J MAJOR 5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA MAJOR 6. SMT. ANUSUYA MAJOR 7. SHRI. RANGANATHA MAJOR 8. SHRI. HANUMANTH MAJOR 9. SMT. SHASHIKALA MAJOR 10. SMT. MANJULA MAJOR 11. SHRI. M.D.MAHESH MAJOR 12. SMT. TAYAMMA MAJOR 13. SMT. RANJITHA MAJOR 14. SHRI. MADHU MAJOR 15. SHRI. CHANDRAYAI MAJOR 16. SMT. RATHNAMMA MAJOR 17. SHRI. YOGARAJ MAJOR 18. SMT. KALPANA MAJOR 19. SMT. M.R.RATHNAMMA MAJOR RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 19 ARE ALL MEMBERS OF MOTAGONDANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MOTAGONDANAHALLI-562127 MAGADI TQ., RAMANAGARA DIST.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R3, SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADV. FOR R4-R6 & R10-R19, R7 TO R9 – SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D, THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 22.1.2019 PASSED BY THE R-3 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Sri.K.N.Puttegowda, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 & 10 to 19.
2. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the meeting held on 22.01.2019 to consider the No Confidence Motion moved by the members of respondent No.3-Grama Panchayat.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was elected as Adhyaksha of respondent No.3 Panchayath on 03.12.2015 and that on 04.01.2019, respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner to hold a meeting pursuant to the motion proposed by the requisite number of members expressing No Confidence in the leadership of the petitioner.
4. That respondent No.2 fixed the date of meeting as 22.01.2019. A copy of which is placed before the Court as Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is contended that on account of demise of his holiness Sri Sri Sri Dr.Shivakumar Swamiji of Siddaganga Mutt, a notification came to be issued on 21.01.2019 declaring 22.01.2019 as public holiday.
5. It is contended that on account of the notification issued by the State Government, petitioner requested respondent No.2 to adjourn the meeting in view of the date of meeting being declared as public holiday. That despite the request, respondent No.2 proceeded to hold the meeting and some of the members have voted and the resolution came to be passed, thereby, dislodging the petitioner from the post of Adyaksha of the Panchayat.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting date having been declared as a public holiday, respondent No.2 could not have conducted the meeting in discharge of his functions, as respondent No.2 is undoubtedly an officer in service of the State Government and being a Government Servant, he is not entitled to discharge duties on a public holiday. On this ground, the writ petition is canvassed. Primarily no provision of law is cited to buttress this contention.
7. Per contra, Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 & 10 to 19 would contend that application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not arise in view of the specific language employed by the legislature while framing the Rules for conducting the meeting under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules, 1994. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act,1897 reads as follows:
“10. Computation of time.-(1) Where, by any or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 applies. ”
(2) This section applies also to all and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January,1887.”
8. Further, inviting the attention of the Court to sub- Rule 5 of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), he would contend that the said Rule specifically prohibits the adjournment of the meeting for considering the motion against the Adyaksha for any reason whatsoever. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Rules reads as under:
“(5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned.”
9. Elaborating further, he would lay emphasis on the phrase “Save as otherwise provided” to contend that it would exclude the application of the provisions of the General Clauses Act as the postponement/adjournment of the meeting can be only on the ground enumerated under the Act or the Rules. The said contention merits consideration.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would place before the Court the ruling of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.Nos.111412-111413 of 2017 disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2017, whereby this Court in paragraph No.19 has been pleased to hold as under:
“19. Admittedly the requisition Annexure-B is presented to the 3rd respondent on 03.11.2017. As per Section 9 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 while computing 30 days a day at the beginning has to be excluded. 30th day fell admittedly on 03.12.2017 Sunday a General Holiday. Therefore meeting is convened on 04.12.2017. As per Section 10 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 in computing any period fixed, if the last day happens to be the General Holiday and such act is done on next working day, that is to be treated as done within the prescribed period. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that meeting is convened beyond thirty days.
11. In the opinion of this Court, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to condone the adjournment of the meeting to the next date in view of the fact that the date fixed for holding the meeting fell on Sunday. The same is rendered without reference to the provisions of Rule 3(5) hence of no avail to the petitioner.
12. In fact, a reading of the provisions of Rule 3 would clearly disclose, that adjournment of the meeting can only be in a circumstance as provided under the proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 i.e., in the event, there being an intervention by an order of the Court. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 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.”
13. Sub-rule 5 prohibits the adjournment of the meeting and sub-rule 6 mandates that in the event there is no quorum within one hour of the time fixed by the Authority, then the notice is said to have lapsed. Sub-rule 5 and Sub- rule 6 of Rule3 reads as under:
“(5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned.
(6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse.”
14. What is of relevance is the language employed in sub-Rule (2). The legislature in it’s wisdom has set out the prescription of fixing the date of meeting on the Assistant Commissioner. Admittedly, the Assistant Commissioner is not an Authority under the Act and is only an officer, specifically empowered under the Rules for the purpose of conducting the No Confidence Motion alone. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 indicates that the Assistant Commissioner shall convene the meeting in the office of the Grama Panchayat “on the date appointed by him” and the same shall be within an outer limit of 30 days and also stipulates the manner and mode, in which notice is to be served upon them.
15. The language employed leaves no scope for any ambiguity and makes it apparent that it is mandatory, that the meeting shall not be adjourned for any reason whatsoever and shall conducted on the date appointed by the Assistant Commissioner. The reading of the Rules makes it apparent that it is the Assistant Commissioner alone who is invested with authority or is empowered to convene and hold the meeting to consider the motion of No Confidence under the Rules. Hence the Assistant Commissioner, though an officer of the State services, but while acting as a empowered Authority would not be bound by the normal service Rules and Conditions of his office pertaining to holidays, which otherwise would be applicable to him in the discharge of the duties attached to his post as an Assistant Commissioner. From a reading of the Rules, it is apparent that it is not the office of the Assistant Commissioner which is invested with the Authority to conduct the meeting, but it is the person occupying the office who is empowered by the Rules, 1994 to conduct the business of the No Confidence motion.
16. The ruling relied upon by the petitioner is admittedly under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the provisions of Rules 1994 are inapplicable to such meetings which is governed by the provisions of Section 47 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. The No Confidence Motion shall be strictly in adherence with the Rules framed by the legislature.
17. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, reliance placed on Section 10 of the Karnataka State General Clauses Act would be of no avail as the Rules speaks of an appointed date fixed by the Authority convening the meeting. Further, the Rules also prohibits adjournment on any ground or on any reason. The only exception carved is the intervention by the Court and in all other occasions, the notice is deemed to have lapsed. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the light of the above discussion, the contention urged by the petitioner requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
The said ground is the sole ground that is canvassed. The same having been rejected, the petition stands dismissed.
Interim order granted earlier stands dissolved. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR