IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 50273 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. SOWMYA. S. R. W/O NATARAJU AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT SUBRAMANYA NAGAR VILLAGE, KALALUGHATTA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR STREET, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562132 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILLA PANCHAYATH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, CHAPPARADAKALLU, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562132.
4. KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123 REP.BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, 5. NARASIMHARAJU AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123 6. B N RAVIKUMAR AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
7. B. SIDDAGANGAIAH AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
8. T R PRADEEP AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
9. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
10.SMT. MAMATHA AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
11.G K HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
12.SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
13.SMT. SHANTHAMMA AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
14.SMT. NARASAMMA AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, KALALU GHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 &2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH MEETING NOTICE DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE R.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE DATED 09.10.2019 INITIATED BY THE R.5 TO 14 AGAINST PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS ILLEGAL ALTERNATIVELY AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the Adhyakshe of Kalalughatta Grama Panchayath, is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the impugned notice dated 18.10.2019 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-H and seeking a declaration that the Motion of No Confidence dated 09.10.2019 is bad in law. The first & second respondents having been represented by Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned AGA resist the writ petition.
2. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 11 to 14 who happen to be the members of said Panchayath could not have affixed their hands to the No Confidence Motion inasmuch as, an enquiry is proceeding against them under Section 43(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayathraj Act, 1993, for misconduct and their removal is in the offing.
Learned AGA submits that pendency of an enquiry per se does not render these members to be non-members nor their membership stands otherwise suspended within the Scheme of 1993 Act. She banks upon the decision of this Court, infra to adumbrate her stand.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter inasmuch as, the scheme of Section 43(a) does not indicate that the pendency of an enquiry per se will result into suspension of the sitting members of the Grama Panchayath concerned nor there is any interdiction for their participating in No Confidence Motion.
4. In more or less a similar circumstances, this Court has already laid down the law in the case of SHIVARAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BASAVA KALYAN TALUK, BIDAR DISTRICT AND OTHERS 2011(2) KLJ 325, wherein para no.9 reads as under:
“9. It is thus clear that in case of a dispute with regard to disqualification of a member of the Grama Panchayat, unless and until a member is disqualified after holding an enquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, he continues to be a member of Grama Panchayat. If that is so, respondents 3 and 4 continue to be the members of the Grama Panchayat till a determination is made by the State Election Commission. Therefore, they cannot only join the other members of the Panchayat in moving the motion of no confidence but also can participate in the meeting convened for the consideration of the said motion of no confidence. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.”
These above observations of the coordinate Bench of this Court completely silence the voice of the petitioner in this case.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv