IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No.1153 OF 2019(LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.Anandappa S/o Hanumanthappa Aged about 45 years Residing at M.K.Hatti Chitradurga Taluk & Dist.
Adyaksha M.K.Hatti Grama Panchayath M.K. Hatti, Chitradurga Taluk & Dist. … Petitioner (By Sri. Siddappa B.M. Advocate) AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner Chitradurga Sub-Division Chitradurga-577 501.
2. The Panchayat Development Officer Gram Panchayat, M.K.Hatti Chitradurga Taluk & Dist.
3. Smt. Bhagyamma W/o Thippeswamy 4. Smt. Sharadamma W/o Ajjappa 5. Sri Ningappa S/o Papanna 6. Smt.Savithramma W/o Shivalingappa 7. Smt. Susheelamma W/o Thippeswamy 8. Smt.Renukamma W/o Mahanthesh 9. Sri.Gouse Mansoor S/o Huseen Sab 10. Smt.Reshma Banu Md Rafi 11. Smt.Gouramma W/o Markandaiah 12. Smt.Yashodhamma W/o Kenchappa 13. Sri. G.Thimmappa S/o Giriyappa 14. Smt. Gangamma W/o Thippeswamy 15. Smt. Sunanda W/o Thimmappa 16. Sri.Nijaguna S/o Chithappa 17. Smt.Lekha W/o Paramesh 18. Smt.Sunandamma W/o Mallappa 19. Sri.Jambunath S/o Murugendrappa 20. Sri. Venkateshappa S/o Papanna All are Majors All are members of Gram Panchayath M.K.Hatti, Chitradurga Taluk Chitradurga District-577501 ... Respondents (By Sri. R.Shashidhara, Advocate for C/R3 to 20:, Sri. Subramani.M., HCGP. For R1:
R2 is served but unrepresented) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice in form No.II dated 27.12.2018 produced as Annexure-D issued By R-1 to the writ petition and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 27.12.2018 produced as Annexure-D.
2. The brief case of the petitioner is that on 27.06.2015 the petitioner was elected as Adhyaksha of the M.K.Hatti Grama Panchayath. On 27.12.2018, 2/3rd members of the said Grama Panchayath have moved no confidence motion against the petitioner under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj, Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the said Act’). The members have given a representation as per Annexure-C in Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994 (‘for short, ‘the said Rules’). Pursuant to that representation at Annexure-C, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice under Rule 3(2) of the said Rules as per Annexure-D, fixing the meeting on 16.01.2019 at 10.00 a.m. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court challenging the notice at Annexure-D.
3. Sri B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, not less than 1/3rd of total members of the Grama Panchayath have to sign and not less than 2 members signing the notice should be personally present before the Assistant Commissioner to hand-over the same to the Assistant Commissioner. It is specifically contended that Rule 3(1) is not complied with. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri R.Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 20 submitted that the respondents herein who have signed the Form No.1 have filed an affidavit before this Court stating that all persons were personally present before the Assistant Commissioner and handed over the Form No.1 to the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, they have complied with the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the said Rules. Secondly, he contended that no confidence motion has been moved against the petitioner and resolution has been passed on 16.01.2019, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksha. In support of his case he has relied on the judgment of this Court in ABDUL RAZAK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB- DIVISION, DAVANAGERE reported in KANTLJ 2005 1 230.
5. Sri Subramani, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submitted that respondent Nos. 3 to 20 have submitted the complaint in Form No.1 bringing it to the notice their intention to move for no confidence motion against the petitioner. The respondent Nos.3 to 20 were personally present on 27.12.2018 before the first respondent. Hence, he submits that there is a compliance of Rule 3(1) of the said Rules.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected as Adhyaksha of M.K.Hatti Grama Panchayat. Respondent Nos. 3 to 20 who are the members of the said Grama Panchayath have moved no confidence motion against the petitioner. They have submitted a notice in Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules on 27.12.2018 as per Annexure-C to the Assistant Commissioner. Pursuant to that, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice on 27.12.2018 vide Annexure-D fixing the meeting for no confidence motion on 16.01.2019. On the same day, no confidence motion has been moved against the petitioner and the 18 members were present and voted in favour of no confidence motion and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksha on 16.01.2019.
8. It is very clear from Annexure-C that no confidence motion notice has been moved by respondent Nos. 3 to 20 in Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of said Rules which has been signed by all the 18 members. In support of their case they have filed affidavits before this Court. On oath they have stated that 18 members were present before the Assistant Commissioner and they have handed-over Form No.1 to the Assistant Commissioner on 27.12.2018. The State Government has filed the statement of objections. It has categorically stated in para 3 that respondent Nos. 3 to 20 have submitted a complaint in Form No.1 to the 1st respondent, bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent their intention to move for No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Respondents 3 to 20 were personally present on 27.12.2018 before the 1st respondent,. The 2nd respondent was also present at the time of submitting the complaint before the 1st respondent on 27.12.2018.
9. Therefore, it is very clear that 18 members who have given a notice under Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules were personally present before the Assistant Commissioner and they have personally submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 27.12.2018. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Rule 3(1) of the said Rules is not complied with, cannot be accepted.
10. The relevant portion of the judgment of this Court in the case of ABDUL RAZAK (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
“5. The examination of the rules can only be in the context of the section and not independent of the main provision for effectuating which provision the rule has been framed. Any one who can complain of non-compliance of the requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules and thereby seek for invalidation of the notice can only be a member in whose favour a right has been given under Section 49 of the Act and not any other person. An ‘adhyaksha’ is a person who is required to face a motion and who can survive to hold the post if only the number of members supporting the motion fall short of the requisite number of two-thirds of the membership of the Panchayat. If once that is complied i.e., not less than two-thirds of the members pass a resolution to that effect, the ‘adhyaksha’ is deemed to have vacated the office. It is the expression of lack of confidence by not less than two-thirds of the members of the panchayat that removes the ‘adhyaksha’ from his office and not the mere notice under Annexure-A. Any irregularity, assuming that it is there, it is not one which is required to be examined at the instance of a person like the ‘adhyaksha’ who obviously does not envy the situation facing no-confidence motion and is eager to have the same quashed by calling in aid technicalities.”
11. Pursuant to Annexure-D dated 27.12.2018, no confidence motion has been moved against the petitioner. The 18 members who were present in the meeting have voted in favour of no confidence motion and the petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksha on 16.01.2019.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-