IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.124-125/2019 (LB-RES) Between 1. Smt. Rukmini, W/o Vijay Kumar, Aged about 31 years, Adhyaksha, Malle Mahadeshwarabetta, Grama Panchayath, Janatha Colony, Malle Mahadeshwarabetta village, Kollegala-571490.
2. B. Mahesh, S/o Bommaiah, Aged about 37 years, Upadhyaksha, Malle Mahadeshwarabetta Grama Panchayath, Tambadigeri Village, Malle Mahadeshwarabetta Post, Kollegala-571490. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Mahadeva Swamy P, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka, By Secretary, Department of Panchayath Raj, M.S.Building, Bangalore-560001.
2. Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-Division, Kollegal-571400.
3. Malle Mahadeshwarabetta Grama Panchayath, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District-571490.
4. M. Muruga, S/o Seeme Madaiah, Aged about 35 years, 5. Murugesh (Market), S/o Madashetty, Aged about 36 years, 6. Archana G W/o Prakash Aged about 32 years, 7. N Ravi S/o Nanjundappa Aged about 35 years, 8. Shivaprasad M S/o Mahadeva Aged about 43 years, 9. Chikkamadamma S/o Gaddimadatamabai Aged about 60 years, 10. M Naga S/o Chikkadundamma Aged about 34 years, 11. Siddarajamma W/o Puttaswamy Aged about 38 years, 12. Jayamma W/o Govindaraju Aged about 38 years, 13. Nagaraju S/o Ramu Aged about 40 years, 14. Muthu S/o Irusappakowndar Aged about 53 years, 15. Mahadevi W/o Naga Aged about 36 years, 16. Muruga S/o Sappeputta Aged about 36 years, 17. M Kumara S/o Madaiah Aged about 35 years, 18. Puttamadi W/o Lakshmana Aged about 53 years, 19. Mahadevamma W/o Mahadevu Aged about 40 years, 20. B Puttambadi S/o Ber Madatambadi Aged about 63 years, 21. P Kempa S/o Poth Veeranna Aged about 56 years, 22. Saroja Madesh D Aged about 40 years, 23. Rathnamm W/o Veerannegowda Aged about 38 years, 24. Kenchi W/o Bhadra Aged about 52 years, 25. M Shivarudra S/o late Mahadevappa Aged about 35 years, 26. Rathnamma W/o D Nagaraju Aged about 35 years, Respondent Nos.4 to 26 are Member of Malle Mahadeswarabetta Grama Panchayath Malle Mahadeshwaabetta Kollegala Taluk Chmarajanagar dist-571490 ... Respondents (By Smt Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 19.12.2018 issued by the R-2 Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-Division, Kollegal, produced at Annexure-A and B to the Writ Petition and etc., These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioners who are the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the respondent No.3-Malle Mahadeswarabetta Grama Panchayath, have challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A, whereby the meeting has been convened on 10.01.2019 at 12:30 PM to consider the complaint made as per Annexure-C on 13.12.2018.
3. The petitioners contend that the motion of no confidence ought to have been moved under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the complaint moved simpliciter without any allegations is impermissible as the same would result in curtailing the tenure, which cannot be permitted, wherein the motion of no confidence is moved without attributing any allegations.
The petitioners further state that the motion of no confidence ought to be taken forward in terms of the procedure prescribed in the Circular dated 07.02.2018, which provides for the process of enquiry and calling for report from the appropriate authority. The petitioners further relies as regards the procedure contemplated at Annexure-E. However the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the said notification has also been withdrawn.
4. Apart from the above mentioned contentions, no other contentions have been urged attacking validity of the notice at Annexure-A. It is clear that in so far as the tenure of the members of the bodies are concerned, the tenure is fixed as per Section 46 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 subject to other provisions of the Act. The curtailment of the tenure of the members would be either under Sections 48, 43-A or by Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Hence, in the present case, the moving of the motion of no confidence beyond the period of 30 months cannot be faulted. Section 49 envisages the moving of no confidence which could either be one without allegations under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 or being one with allegations as contemplated under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Division Bench in W.A.No.844/2018 has clearly held at Paragraph No.40 as follows:
“40. x x x x Else, the general right of the members to move a motion of no confidence without stating any reason, per sub-section (1), was neither intended to be taken away nor has been taken away. This, in our view, is the only appropriate way of interpreting the provisions as existing, particularly looking to the purport and object thereof.”
5. The right of moving the motion of no confidence simpliciter is not in any way taken away and in the present case, the perusal of the complaint at Annexure-C would reveal that it is the motion of no confidence simpliciter and in the absence of any other contentions, the challenge to the notice at Annexure-A would fail and the petitions are dismissed as not making out any case to set aside the notice at Annexure-A.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ/HA