IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.49399/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
S. HEMAVATHI W/O SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PRESENT, HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434.
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) AND:
… PETITIONER 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHATHIRAJ, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
4. SRI H S SUNIL KUMAR S/O SANNEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
5. SMT T M SAVITHA W/O RAMESH AGED MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
6. SMT MANGALAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
7. SRI ASHOK H N S/O NAGARAJU AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
8. SRI CHANNEGOWDA S/O DODDAMMANA CHANNEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
9. SMT GEETHA H A W/O RAVI AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
10. SRI H P SHIVAKUMAR S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
11. SMT LALITHA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
12. SMT VASANTHA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
13. SMT NAGAMMA W/O LAKKAPPA CHARI AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
14. SMT T M SAVITHA W/O RAMESH AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
15. SRI SIDDAPPAJI S/O BASAVACHARI AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
16. SRI B N YOGESH S/O NINGEGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
17. SMT SUNITHA N W/O KUMAR B N AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
18. SRI B G RAMACHANDRA S/O GOPALACHARI AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
19. SMT PAVITHRA B V W/O VIJAYKUMAR AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
20. SRI LOKESH B C S/O CHAMAPPA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
21. SRI B N KUMARASWAMY S/O NAGARAJU AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
22. SRI SWAMYGOWDA S/O NARAYANAGOWDA AGE:MAJOR MEMBER HIREMARALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF HIREMARALI PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NO COMFIDENCE MOTION NOTICE DTD:26.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE W.P. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Petitioner who is the president of the Hiremarali Grama Panchayath has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner fixing the date for consideration of motion of no confidence as 14.10.2019.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the complaint that has been made before the Assistant Commissioner does not contain any allegations. It is further contended that at an earlier occasion, motion of no confidence was moved. However, the same was withdrawn and the same is a matter of record and hence, it is contended that moving another motion of no confidence would be in violation of the embargo created by third proviso to Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. It is clear that the embargo under the third proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act would come into play only when the earlier motion of no confidence has been considered and negatived by the Grama Panchayat. In the present case, in fact the earlier motion of no confidence was not put for consideration before the Grama Panchayat and was withdrawn. Hence, the said contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. As regards the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the motion of no confidence under Section 49 of the Act ought to contain allegations is also not tenable. It is clear that the right to move motion of no confidence simpliciter under Section 49(1) without making any allegation is independent of the right to move motion of no confidence with allegations under Section 49(2) of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. LAKSHMAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS – 2009(1) KAR. L. J. 94, at paragraph 40 has observed that the right to move motion of no confidence simpliciter is independent of the right to move motion of no confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act.
5. Both the contentions raised by the petitioner have also been considered by the Division Bench in the case of SMT. GIRIJA BAI v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS in W.A.No.2446/2019 and when noticed the contentions raised by the petitioner have been answered against the petitioner herein.
6. Accordingly, in light of settled position of law, petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VP