IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.6637-6638/2019 & 6901-6905/2019 & 6907-6911/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Sri Chandrashekhar G.E., Son of Eranna, Aged about 36 years, Resident of R. Gollarahatti Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
2. Sri L. Ramesh, Son of Linganna, Aged about 40 years, Resident of Raddihalli Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
3. Sri B. Raghu, Son of D.Balaiah, Aged about 42 years, Resident of Lakshmipura Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
4. Sri K.H. Ramesh, Son of Hanumanthaiah K.R., Aged about 40 years, Resident of Kasapura Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
5. Sri R.C. Rajannna, Son of Chikka Obalaiah, Aged about 38 years, Resident of Reddihalli Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
6. Sri Lakshminarayana, Son of Kariyappa, Aged about 45 years, Resident of Reddihalli Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
7. Sri K.R. Bheemaraju, Son of Rangappa, Aged about 42 years, Resident of Kasapura Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
8. Smt. Radhamma, Wife of Lakshminarayana, Aged about 38 years, Resident Sattigenahalli Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
9. Smt. B. Manjula, Wife of Rangaraju, Aged about 38 years, Resident of R.Gollarahatti Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
10. Smt. Sanna Hanumakka, Wife of Nagaraju, Aged about 39 years, Resident of Mallanayakanahalli Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
11. Smt. Ambika, Wife of Nagaraju, Aged about 40 years, Resident of Lakshmipura Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
12. Smt. Lakshmamma, Wife of Bajjanna, Aged about 60 years, Resident of R.Gollarahatti Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133. (By Sri D.P. Mahesh, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Pachayathraj and Rural Development, Rep. by Principal Secretary, M.S. Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
… Petitioners 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division, Madhugiri – 572 133.
3. The Reddihalli Grama Panchayath, Reddihalli Village, Represented by its Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
4. Smt. Sowbhagyamma, Wife of Chikkaraju, Aged about 42 years, Resident of R. Gollarahatti Village, Midigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 133.
...Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1 & R-2; R-3 is served through hand summons;
Sri L. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for R-4) ***** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 28.01.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, as the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash endorsement dated 28.1.2019 vide Annexure-A issued by the second respondent whereby the second respondent has stated that it is not possible to consider the complaint dated 25.1.2019 in light of the fact that the bar as contained in III proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 would operate, since on 17.11.2018 meeting was convened and due to absence of quorum, the meeting was dissolved.
2. The second respondent - Assistant Commissioner has interpreted the dissolution of meeting on 17.11.2018 as sufficient to consider the motion of no confidence as having been considered and negatived by the Gram Panchayat. The said interpretation is clearly against the plain reading of Section 49 of the Act in so far as the bar under III proviso would come into play only if the motion of No Confidence is considered and negatived and in so far as the notice itself stood lapsed due to absence of quorum and the meeting stood dissolved in terms of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules,1994, the question of considering the proceedings in the said meeting to have the effect that the motion of No Confidence was considered and negatived is impermissible.
3. This Court has taken the view that dissolution of meeting due to lack of quorum could not be construed to be a bar as provided under III proviso under Section 49 of the Act and it has been observed as follows:
“8. Having heard both the counsel, it is to be noted that a bar under 3rd Proviso to Section 49 of the Act is very clear and 3rd proviso reads as follows:
“Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived 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”.
9. On a bare reading it becomes clear that for the bar to apply the resolution must have been “considered and negatived by the Gram Panchayat”.
10. It is clear that as per Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, in the absence of quorum within one hour of the time fixed convening the meeting “the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under Sub-rule(1) shall lapse”. The meeting has been dissolved as per the order at Annexure-H and there has been a declaration that the notice has lapsed. Once the meeting stood dissolved as per rule 3(6), there was no consideration of the Motion of No-confidence as it was not put to vote as contemplated under rule 7. It is clear that bar under 3rd proviso would come into operation only where a resolution has been considered and negatived and once notice itself is declared to have lapsed the meeting is dissolved and there being no consideration of the said resolution it cannot be said the resolution was considered and negatived.”
4. Accordingly, the endorsement dated 28.1.2019 at Annexure-A is set aside and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to certain formal defects in complaint dated 25.1.2019, he intends to withdraw the same. Further, it is open for the petitioner to make appropriate motion as regards withdrawal of the complaint dated 25.1.2019 before the Assistant Commissioner.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:mhp