IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NOs.744-745 OF 2019(LB-ELE) BETWEEN:
1. SMT RUDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC:VICE PRESIDENT OF ATTIMAGE VILLAGE GRAM PANCHAYATH RESIDING AT ATTIMAGE VILLAGE TALUK:HOSADURGA-577 527 DISTRICT CHITRADURGA.
2. SRI C RAMESH SON OF CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT OF ATTIMAGE VILLAGE GRAM PANCHAYATH R/O ATTIMAGE VILLAGE TALUK:HOSADURGA-577 527 DISTRICT CHITRADURGA.
... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI.G.S.KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL, A/W SRI. AZEEMUDDIN M MOTEKHAN, ADV.) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADRUGA-577 501 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOSDURGA TALUK PANCHAYAT HOSDURGA -577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ATTIMAGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH ATTIMAGE-577 527 HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI B THIPPAIAH S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF , GADIYAPPANAHATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. SRI D RAJAPPA S/O SRI DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENT OF ATTIMAGE VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI SHANIVARADA KARIYAPPA S/O SRI SHANIVARADA HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHANTANAGAVI A.K.HATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SMT RAJAMMA W/O SRI THIMMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULLUKATTE VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
8. SMT RUPADEVI W/O SRI RANGANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDENT OF MASANIHALLI LAMBANI HATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
9. SMT PUTTAMMA W/O SRI ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF DODDATHIMMAYYANA HATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
10. SMT YASHODAMMA W/O SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF MALLAPURA VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTIRCT.
11. SMT TIMMAKKA W/O SRI RAMABHOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF ATTIMAGE BOVIHATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 12. SMT HANUMAKKA W/O SRI RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF ATTIMAGE BOVIHATTI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTIRCT.
13. SRI B T RAMAPPA S/O SRI THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHANTANAGAVI VILLAGE MADADAKERE HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R1-R3, SHRI. K.S. ARUN, ADV. FOR R4 TO R13) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/2/2019, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOs.6967- 6968/2019 AND ALLOW THE APPEALS BY GRANTING INTERIM STAY AS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ALL THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THIS SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The learned Single Judge has declined to grant interim relief in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners for challenging the notice dated 1st February 2018 issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the said Act of 1993”). Earlier, a motion under Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 was moved against the petitioner. The notice was quashed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 21st January 2019.
3. On plain reading of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993, they are independent. Even assuming that the earlier motion taken out under sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 has failed, there is no embargo on taking out a motion under Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12th October 2018 passed in W.A.Nos.844/2013 & 853/2018 and connected matters. This decision has no relevance as far as the motion under Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 is concerned, in the context of the failure of the motion of no confidence under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993.
5. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in not granting the discretionary interim relief staying the proceedings of the meeting convened on the basis of ‘No Confidence Motion’ taken out under sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993. In any case, the outcome of the meeting will be subject to further orders, which may be passed in the writ petitions, which are pending before the learned Single Judge.
6. We, therefore, decline to entertain the writ appeals. There is no reason to interfere with the interim order.
7. As per the interim order dated 22nd February 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in these appeals, ‘No Confidence Motion’ was ordered to be proceeded with. Further direction was issued that the result shall be placed in a sealed cover till 27th February 2019. The said interim order was extended further. Accordingly, meeting has been held.
8. By keeping all the contentions open in the pending writ petitions, the appeals are dismissed.
9. As a consequence of dismissal of the appeals, it will be open for the authorities to declare the results, by opening the sealed cover which will be subject to outcome of the writ petitions.
The pending interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE DM