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.54684/2018 (LB-ELE) Between:
Smt. Sharada Aged about 54 years W/o M. Some Gowda President of Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat R/at ‘Sri Manikanta Sadana’ Nidigere Post and Village Hethur Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk Hassan District – 573 134 ... Petitioner (By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate) And:
1. The Assistant Commissioner Sakaleshpura Sub-Division Sakaleshapura Hassan District – 573 134.
2. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat Sakaleshapura Hassan District – 573 134.
3. Sri. Vishwanatha S/o Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda Aged about 45 years R/at Adaragere Village Nidiregere Post, Hesluru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
4. Sri. G.D.Madhu S/o Sri. Erayya Aged about 25 years R/at Doddanahalli Village Nidigere Post, Hethuru Hobli Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
5. Sri. B.B.Dharamappa Father’s name not known Aged about 50 years R/at Belluru Village Nidigere Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
6. Smt. Kodamma W/o late Thippaiah Aged about 65 years R/at Hadlahalli Village and post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
7. Smt. Mohini W/o Sri. Subramanya Aged about 30 years R/at Shettihalli Belluru Dakale Nidigere Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
8. Smt. Lakshmi W/o Sri. Vittala Poojari Aged about 45 years R/at Doddanahalli Village Nidigere Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
9. Smt. Roopa W/o Sri. Nagesh Nayak Aged about 33 years R/at Hennali Grama Nidigere Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134.
10. Sri. K.V.Manjunatha S/o Patel Veerappa Aged about 48 years R/at Kuruvathuru Grama Shukravarasanthe Post Sakleshpura Taluk – 573 134. ... Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura , Advocate for R1 Sri. G.LVishwanath, Advocate for R3 to R10) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 01.12.2018 bearing No. Election No.6/2018-19 issued by R-1 herein which is produced as annexure-A, convening the meeting of Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat at 12pm on 19.12.2018 to consider the no confidence motion moved against the petitioner/President of the panchayat and etc.
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 Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat, has challenged the notice at Annexure-A fixing the meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence on 19.12.2018. The complaint pursuant to which notice was issued is found at Annexure-F and a bare perusal of the said petition submitted to the Assistant Commissioner indicates that specific allegations have been made. Noticing the same, learned counsel for the members of Panchayat i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 10 submits that they would not continue to pursue the motion of no-confidence.
2. Taking note of the fact that if allegations are made, the motion of no-confidence would be treated as one under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same cannot be taken up for consideration till separate Rules are framed as laid down by a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (W.A. No.844/2018 & connected matters), the present notice is not sustainable.
3. Taking note of the statement of the members as well as the nature of the complaint, the notice at Annexure-A is set aside.
4. However, liberty is reserved to the members to move a fresh motion of no-confidence as is permissible under law.
5. The Assistant Commissioner to ensure strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(2) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 in the event of fresh motion of no-confidence being initiated by the members.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed subject to aforesaid observations.
No further order as regards I.A.No.1/2019 is called for. The matter is being disposed of without awaiting service of notice as regards respondent No.2, in light of the submission made by the counsels and noticing that the notice issued is legally not tenable as it is one that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act and hence cannot be proceeded with.
Sd/- JUDGE NR