IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.54685-686/2018 (LB-ELE) Between:
1. Smt. Prema Aged about 40 years W/o Sri. Yogesh President of Yasaluru Grama Panchayat R/at Huvinahalli Hamlet Kumbarahalli Village & Post, Yasaluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 137.
2. Sri K.K.Yogesh Aged about 48 years S/o Kenche Gowda Vice-President of Yasaluru Grama Panchayat Residing at Kerodi Village, Kumbarahalli Post Sakleshpura Taluk-573 137. ... Petitioners (By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate) And:
1. The Assistant Commissioner Sakaleshpura Sub-Division Sakaleshapura Hassan District – 573 134.
2. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, Sakaleshapura Hassan District – 573 134.
3. Smt. Savitha W/o Gopal Y.J.
Aged about 25 years R/at Gangadhara Layout, Yasaluru Village Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
4. Smt. Gowramma W/o Ravikumar Aged about 35 years R/at Tarikbailu Village Kerodii Dakale, Yasaluru Hobli Sakaleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
5. Sri. Mohammed Saifuddin S/o Abdul Gafur Aged about 45 years R/at Yasaluru Village Yasaluru Post, Yasaluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
6. Sri. P.S.Chandrakumar S/o P.Srikantappa Aged abut 63 years R/at Yesaluru Village Yasaluru Post, Yasaluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
7. Sri. Mohan Kumar.H.S. S/o Siddaiah Aged about 48 years R/at Hulugalale, Yasaluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
8. Smt. Najamus Sahar W/o Syed Dawood Aged about 35 years R/at Yasaluru Village & Post, Yasaluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
9. Smt. Parvathy W/o Pramesh Aged about 37 years R/at Balekere Grama Yasaluru Village & Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134. ... Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura , AGA for R1 Sri. G.L.Vishwanath, Advocate for R3 to R9) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 01.12.2018 bearing No.Election No.07/2018-19 issued by R-1 herein, which is produced as annexure-A, convening the meeting of Yasaluru Grama Panchayat at 10:00 AM to 19.12.2018 to consider the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner/President of the panchayat and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners who are the President and Vice- President of Yesaluru Grama Panchayat, have challenged the notice at Annexure-A fixing the meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence on 19.12.2018. The complaint pursuant to which notice was issued is found at Annexure-F and a bare perusal of the said notice indicates that specific allegations have been made. Noticing the same, learned counsel for the members of Panchayat i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 9 submit that they would not continue to pursue the motion of no-confidence.
2. Taking note of the fact that if allegations are made, motion of no-confidence would be treated as one under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same cannot be taken up for consideration till separate Rules are framed as laid down by a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (W.A. No.844/2018 & connected matters), the present notice is not sustainable.
3. Taking note of the statement of the members as well as the nature of the complaint, the notice at Annexure-A is set aside. As per the present complaint, it would require the following of procedure as provided under Section 49(2) of the Act.
4. However, liberty is reserved to the member to move a fresh motion of no-confidence as is permissible under law.
5. The Assistant Commissioner to ensure strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(2) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 in the event of fresh motion of no-confidence being initiated by the members.
Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed subject to aforesaid observations.
No further order as regards I.A.No.1/2019 is called for. The matter is being disposed of without awaiting service of notice as regards respondent No.2, in light of the submission made by the counsels and noticing that the notice issued is legally not tenable as it is one that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act and hence cannot be proceeded with.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR