IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.9557-9558/2018(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
MRS. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O NAGAIAH PRESIDENT OF UDDHUR GRAM PANCHAYATH R/AT NADAPANAHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.S. NAGARAJ, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT PIN-571 105.
3. THE UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS PANCHAYTH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
4. MRS.SAVITHRAMMA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
5. MR.MADEGOWDA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
6. MR.V.SRINIVAS MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAJMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
7. MR.VIVEKANANDA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
8. MRS.JYOTHI MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
9. MRS.NAGARATHNA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
10. MRS.MANJULA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
11. MRS.CHENNAJAMMA MAJOR BY AGE MEMBER OF UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDDHUR, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDISHWARA, HCGP, FOR R1 & R2, SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R10, R3 TO R9 AND R11 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A I.E. THE RESOLUTION DATED:21.2.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-3 UDDHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN THE PRESENCE OF [PRESIDED BY] THE RESPONDENT- 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-2 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS PRESIDENT OF RESPONDENT-3 GRAM PANCHAYATH.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These writ petitions are filed challenging the resolution dated 21.2.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the Adhyaksha of the respondent No.3- Grama Panchayat. The members of the Grama Panchayat have moved a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). The one-third members of the Panchayat have complained to the Assistant Commissioner as per Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Pursuant to the complaint of respondent Nos.4 to 11, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice dated 30.1.2018 vide Annexure-B fixing the meeting on 21.2.2018.
Subsequently, on 12.2.2018, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a memo stating that meeting called on 21.2.2018 has been cancelled. Subsequently, vide Annexure-D dated 16.2.2018, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules. In pursuance to the earlier notice dated 30.1.2018 vide Annexure-B, he has fixed the meeting on 21.2.2018. Pursuant to the notice dated 16.2.2018 vide Annexure-D, the petitioner has participated in the meeting called on 21.2.2018 and ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been passed and all 9 members voted against the petitioner and resolution has been passed removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
3. Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per proviso to Rule 3(2) of the said Rules, once the meeting has been adjourned, there should be clear 15 days notice to be issued for conducting a meeting. But in the case on hand, the second notice is issued on 16.12.2018 and meeting has been fixed on 21.2.2018. Since there is no clear 15 days notice. Hence, the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat is unsustainable. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.
4. Sri.Kethan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10 submits that notice for ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been issued vide Annexure-B dated 30.1.2018 fixing the date of meeting on 21.2.2018 and thus, there is clear 15 days notice issued. Subsequently, on 16.2.2018 vide Annexure-C, the meeting called on 21.2.2018 has been cancelled for some clarification from the higher authority. The second notice dated 16.2.2018 vide Annexure-D is issued in pursuance to earlier notice at Annexure-B. Hence, he submitted that there is clear 15 days notice for conducting the meeting. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
5. Sri. Subramani, learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the meeting has been fixed on 21.2.2018. In that meeting, the petitioner was present and he has participated in the meeting. All 9 members have voted in favour of ‘No Confidence Motion’ and a resolution has been passed for removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. He has contended that the second notice has been issued on 16.2.2018. If the petitioner has any grievance, he could have challenged the same before this Court. Since he has not challenged the same, now he cannot challenge the resolution. In support of his case, he has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Munirathnamma v. The Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub Division and another reported in ILR 2007 KAR 690.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. The petitioner is the member of the respondent No.3-Grama Panchayat. He was elected as Adhyaksha of respondent No.3-Grama Panchayat. The respondent Nos.4 to 11 have filed the complaint under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules requesting for moving a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. Pursuant to the complaint, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice dated 30.1.2018 vide Annexure-B fixing the meeting on 21.2.2018. Subsequently, vide Annexure-C dated 12.2.2018, the meeting fixed was adjourned for want of clarification. Pursuant to the earlier notice dated 30.1.2018, the second notice dated 16.2.2018 has been issued vide Annexure-D fixing the date as 21.2.2018. The petitioner has participated in the meeting and ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been moved and all 9 members have voted in favour of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ and petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat and resolution has been passed. After the resolution has been passed, the petitioner has filed these petitions challenging that the notice dated 16.2.2018 on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the said Rules. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings without challenging the notice dated 16.2.2018 vide Annexure-D and after passing the resolution removing the petitioner from Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, he has approached this Court challenging that the notice dated 16.2.2018. Hence, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the notice dated 16.02.2018 and resolution passed on 21.02.2019.
8. In paragraph-8 of the decision of this Court in the case of Munirathnamma (supra), this Court has held as follows:
“8. It is to be noted that on the date of receipt of the notice the appellant was aware that the proposed meeting is convened by the Assistant Commissioner to discuss the ‘No Confidence Motion’ on 17.06.2006. The first opportunity for the appellant to find out the alleged illegality in holding of the proposed meeting is on the date. The appellant, did not at any stage question the validity of the notice issued by him for the meeting scheduled to be held on 17.06.2006. Even on 17.06.2006 when the motion came up for discussion, the appellant absented himself and thereby acquiesced to the holding of the said motion. As such, it appears that she has been removed in accordance with the procedure followed by the assistant Commissioner and thereby the appellant acquiesced the entire process. Having done so, now at the belated stage i.e., after passing of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ that too consequences confronting the very meeting on the ground that the provision of rule was mandatory and its violation was enough to vitiate the proceedings.”
9. In the case on hand, even though the notice dated 16.2.2018 vide Annexure-D has been issued, the petitioner has not challenged the said notice. He has participated in the no confidence proceedings and ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been moved against the petitioner and 9 members have voted against the petitioner. After ‘No Confidence Motion’ has been moved, now the petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the notice dated 16.2.2018. The petitioner has accepted the meeting notice fixed vide Annexure-D and participated in the meeting and hence he is estopped from challenging the said proceedings.
10. In view of the above observations, the writ petitions are devoid of merits. Hence, the same are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DM