IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.14443/2018 (LB-RES) Between:
Smt. Shweta W/o Lakshmanna Aged about 29 years Occ:-President Hoovinahalli Kavalu Grama Panchayat Hassan Taluk & District-573 201. ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.Ravindra Prasad, Advocate for Sri Hemant.R.Chandangoudar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Hassan Sub Division, Hassan-573 201.
3. The Executive Officer Taluk Panchayat, Hassan-573 201.
4. Hoovinahalli Kavalu Grama Panchayat Hassan Taluk & District-573 201 By its Secretary. ... Respondents (By Smt Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2, Sri Nagaiah, Advocate for R3 & R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Impugned notice dated 26.03.2018 issued by R2 vide Annexure-E and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who is the President of Hoovinahalli Kavalu Gram Panchayat, Hassan Taluk has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E dated 26.03.2018, fixing the date for consideration of motion of no confidence on 11.04.2018. Admittedly, the complaint by the members has been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 02.03.2018, a copy of which has been produced at Annexure-B.
2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 states that the matter itself could be disposed of in view of violation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Noticing that the complaint has been submitted by the members on 02.03.2018 as per Rule 3(2), the Assistant Commissioner is required to convene the meeting on a date, not later than 30 days from the date on which the complaint has been made under sub-Rule(1) of the Rules, 1994.
3. Noting that the date of the meeting has been fixed on 11.04.2018 while the date of submission of the complaint was 02.03.2018, on this ground alone, the notice at Annexure-E is liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside.
4. This is in light of the settled position of law that procedure under Rule 3(2) has to be adhered to mandatorily. However, in view of the lapse by the Assistant Commissioner, liberty is reserved to the members to initiate a fresh process of motion of no confidence as permissible under law. Writ Petitions are being allowed on the basis that the Assistant Commissioner has not adhered to the time limit as prescribed in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994. Hence, if fresh motion of no confidence is initiated, Assistant Commissioner has to ensure that there would be no lapse on his part as regards adherence to the time period as prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994.
5. Though it is noticed that the members of the Gram Panchayat who have submitted the complaint have not been made as parties, however, in view of the admitted position of law referred to above, any direction at this stage to implead the other members would not serve any purpose and would prolong the matter when the ultimate result in light of the legal position is a certainty and hence, it is considered necessary to dispose of the matter.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/SMJ