R 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.28684/2019 (LB ELE) BETWEEN SMT. S PALAKSHAMMA W/O PANCHAKSHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS CHAIRMAN, MARASHETTIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, MARASHETTIHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI RAJAGOPAL M R, ADV.) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU 572 101.
... PETITIONER 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MARASHETTIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, MARASHETTIHALLI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O RAVEESH.B AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O AMMANAHALLI, BANDIHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
4. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O KENCHANAHALLI, BANDIHALLI POST NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572216.
5. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O SHIVANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O BANDIHALLI AT POST, NITTUR HOBI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
6. SRI MANJUNATH B.C S/O CHANNAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O BANDIHALLI AT POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
7. SRI B.R. RAJANNA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O BIDAREHALLI CAVAL, KUNDARANAHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
8. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O KUNDARANAHALLI, ADLAGERE POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
9. SRI SHEKARAPPA S/O NARASEEYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O MARASHETTIHALLI AT POST KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
10. SRI UMESHAIAH S/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O BADENAHALLI, SAMPAGI R S POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
11. SRI MUDALAGIRAIAH, S/O SANNAKENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O KUNDARANAHALLI ADLAGERE POST NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
12. SRI CHANDRAIAH S/O MARIBASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O MARASHETTIHALLI AT POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
13. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O R B MURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O D RAMPURA MARASHETTIHALLI POST KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
14. SRI CHANDRAIAH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O JANAKADEVANAHALLI, SAMPIGE POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
15. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O DONNERE, MARASHETTIHALLI POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
16. SRI SIDDARAMEGOWDA S/O NAMBANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KUNDARANAHALLI ADLAGERE POST NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
17. SMT. ASHA W/O CHANNAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O KENCHANAHALLI, BANDIHALLY POST NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
18. SMT. LATHA S W/O GURUSIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O BENNUR, ATHIKATTE POST, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.A SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI PRAMOD R, ADV. FOR C/R3 TO R18.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROPOSAL OF MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE DATED 19.06.2019 MOVED BY R-3 TO 18 IN FORM NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND THE MEETING NOTICE DATED 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-E ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Caveator counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 18.
3. The petitioner is the President of the Marashettihalli Gram Panchayat-second respondent herein and that the petitioner is aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the motion of no confidence dated 19.06.2019 and the meeting notice dated 01.07.2019 scheduled to be held on 17.07.2019 is before this court.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion 17 out of 22 members second respondent Panchayat had moved a proposal on 05.03.2019 and the first respondent, pursuant to the proposed no confidence motion convened a meeting on 14.03.2019 vide meeting notice dated 01.04.2019. That the meeting convened on 14.03.2019 is said to have lapsed on account of there being no quorum. The copy of the proceedings drawn up by the first respondent on 14.03.2019 is produced as Annexure- B.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of drawing up of the proceedings, the second meeting notice called on 17.07.2019 is illegal and lapsing of the motion also has to be read down and brought within the ambit of the third proviso to Section 49(1) of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) which reads as follows:-
“Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived [emphasis by Court] by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [within two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat.]”
On a plain reading of the third proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act makes it apparent that the framers of the law in their wisdom have deemed it necessary, that for the bar under the third proviso to be attracted, the proposed motion of no confidence ought to have been considered and negatived i.e. there must be a completion of the process envisaged under sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short the ‘Rules 1994’) which reads as under:-
“(7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.”
6. On a reading of the rule it is apparent that the first respondent Assistant Commissioner is required to read-out to the members assembled, the motion, for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and such motions ought to be put to vote without any debate. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 provides for exercise of franchise by the members and mandates that motion ought to be carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the gram panchayat and further details the consequences of the motion being carried out by the majority. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:-
“(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, if he is not present at the meeting.”
7. It is also relevant to note the provisions of sub- rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 which mandates that the meeting cannot be convened in the event there is no quorum within an hour of the appointed time. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:-
“(6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse.”
Thus the steps or procedure detailed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 requires to be preceded by the gathering of the necessary quorum. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:-
“(7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.”
In the event the necessary quorum is not available the Rule mandates that the meeting shall stand dissolved implying thereby a deeming provision resulting in the dissolution of the meeting, by operation of the provision, which becomes applicable on the lack of quorum for holding the meeting and the Rule further provides that the notice given under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 shall stand lapsed. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:-
“(1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner.”
8. Thus the legislature has not only provided the procedure for convening the meeting to carry out the motion but has also stipulated such pre-requisites which would enable the Assistant Commissioner to convene the meeting. In the absence of which, convening of the meeting is prohibited and the consequences are also provided under the Rules i.e. the meeting shall be deemed to have stood dissolved and the notice given, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
9. The language employed by the legislature clearly details the consequences of there not being the quorum stipulated and the effect and consequences that follow. Whereas, the language of the third proviso speaks otherwise, it mandates that there ought to be a positive act of convening of the meeting and convening would presuppose the availability of the quorum and consideration of the no confidence motion by the required quorum and negation of the said proposal and in the event of such consideration and negation alone, the bar imposed under the third proviso becomes operable. In the instant case, neither has the meeting been convened nor has the motion been put to vote and negatived.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the instant case though the members had in fact gathered outside the meeting hall they did not enter the meeting hall as the members supporting the motion did not have the required quorum to carry the motion and hence such a step was adopted. He would contend that if the second meeting is permitted to be convened and the proposal considered, it would amount to placing a premium on the efforts of the disgruntled elements leading to instability and otherwise and hence, third proviso ought to be read down to also include a situation where there is no quorum and make the bar provided under the third proviso applicable to such motions also.
11. The said contention cannot be appreciated in the light of the language employed by the legislature and reading down of the provision by the Courts is only in the event of any ambiguity or in the event of the provisions remaining silent. In the instant case, the legislature has categorically provided as to when the bar would operate, that is, only if the meeting has been convened and there is compliance in terms of sub-rule (2) & (7) of the Rule 3 of Rules 1994 i.e., the motion is put to vote and negated in terms of sub-rule (9) of the Rule 3 of the Rules 1994. Sub- rule (2), (7) & (9) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 are reproduced as under:-
“(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II:
Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.
(7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.
(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, if he is not present at the meeting.”
In the absence of the pre-requisites, question of the proviso getting attracted is impermissible.
12. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would place reliance on the ruling of the Division Bench rendered in W.As. No.1202-1204/2014 and would invite the attention of the court to the observations in para 4 whereby the Division Bench has been pleased to negate a similar plea. The co-ordinate Bench of this court in similar circumstances has also ruled contrary to the contention put-forth by the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE