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 No.57691/2018 (LB-ELE) Between:
Smt. Rekha W/o Sri. H. Ramanna Aged about 35 years R/at Alurududdanahalli Village Kundana Hobli Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 562 110. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Venkatesha.C., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Rural Development And Panchayath Raj Vidhana Soudha Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru – 560 001 Represented by its Principal Secretary 2. The Assistant Commissioner Doddaballapura Sub-Division Doddaballapura – 574 023 3. The Exevutive Officer Devanhalli Taluk Panchayath Devanahalli – 562 110 4. Alurududdanahalli Gram Panchayath Alurududdanahalli Village Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 562 110 Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer 5. Smt. Pillamma Aged about 45 years W/o Sri. Siddaramaiah 6. Smt. Gowramma Aged about 32 years W/o Sri. Ramanna 7. Smt. Nagaveni Aged about 30 years W/o Sri. Rangaswamy 8. Smt. Gowramma Aged about 28 years W/o Sri. Narasimhappa 9. Sri. Kadirappa.P. Aged about 55 years S/o Sri. John Poojappa 10. Sri. Lakshmana.B.V. Aged about 30 years S/o Sri. Venkatashamappa 11. Sri. Mariyappa Aged about 50 years S/o Sri. Chikkanna 12. Sri. P. Hanumanthagowda Aged about 32 years S/o Sri. P. Patalappa 13. Smt. Lakshmamma Aged about 46 years W/o Sri. Rajanna The Respondent Nos.5 to 13 are Members of the Alurududdanahalli Grama panchayath, Alurududdanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 562 110 ... Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapur, AGA for R1 & R2 Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana, Advocate for R11 Notice to R3 to R10, R12 & R13 is dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 11.12.2018 issued by the R-2 at Annexure-T to the writ petition and grant an interim order of stay, staying the operation and execution of notice dated 11.12.2018 issued by the R-2 at Annexure-T pending disposal of the above writ petition.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is the President of Alurududdanahalli Grama Panchayath i.e., 4th respondent, has challenged the present notice at Annexure-T, wherein the Assistant Commissioner had fixed the meeting on 29.12.2018 at 11.00 AM to consider the motion of no-confidence that was moved by the members.
2. The complaint made by the members is found at Annexure-S. The petitioner contends that the notice of the Assistant Commissioner clearly specifies that it is a motion of no-confidence and has treated the same as being one under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’). It is clear that the Assistant Commissioner is an Administrative Authority and no quasi judicial power as such vests in the Assistant Commissioner while issuing notice.
3. The Assistant Commissioner on receipts of the complaint has the power to scrutinize the complaint to determine whether it is a complaint under Section 49(1) or 49(2) of the Act when the complaint itself does not mention as to whether motion of no-confidence is one that is being moved simpliciter (under Section 49(1) of the Act) or whether it is being moved with allegation as contemplated (under Section 49(2) of the Act). However, in the present case, the complaint at Annexure-S, in specified last two paragraphs, clearly stipulates that the motion of no-confidence is being moved under Section 49(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner under such circumstances does not have power to construe this complaint to be one under Section 49(2) of the Act. Hence, the notice at annexure-T is not to be construed by the Assistant Commissioner as one falling within the ambit of Section 49(2) of the Act. If such interpretation is given conferring powers to the Assistant Commissioner, the same would result in watering down the right available under Section 49(1) of the Act and also conferring such the power on the Assistant Commissioner which is envisaged as per the Legislative Scheme. Accordingly, Annexure-S is a motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act and the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner is to be construed as relating to motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act. No other grounds are made to attack the validity of the notice at Annexure-T.
4. On an earlier occasion, similar attempts have been made but were unsuccessful. This Court, by order dated 22.11.2018 in W.P.No.27928/2018, had recorded that members would not insist as regards the earlier complaint and accordingly, had reserved liberty to move fresh motion of no-confidence. Hence, no grounds are made to interfere with the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in the present case. As the members are represented and the matter has been disposed of in light of the settled legal position, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.
Accordingly, the above said writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NR