IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.9866/2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri S.N.Shivakumar S/o Nagegowda, Aged about 33 years, Adhyaksha of Agasanapura Grama, R/o Saahalli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District-571 401. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Chandrashekar.H.B Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Rural Development and Panchayathraj, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Deputy Commissioner Mandya District, Mandya-571 401.
3. Assistant Commissioner Mandya Sub Division, Mandya District-571 401.
4. Panchayath Development Officer Agasanapura Grama Panchayath, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District-571 401.
5. Executive Officer Taluka Panchayath, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District-571 401. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A.Subramani, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated 13.02.2019 in No.E.L.N.114/18-19 issued by the R-3 as per Annexure-F holding the same as without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is Adhyaksha of Agasanapura Grama Panchayath and has challenged the notice at Annexure-F dated 13.02.2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening the meeting to consider motion of no-confidence on 05.03.2019.
2. The petitioner contends that on an earlier occasion, motion of no-confidence had been moved on the basis of certain allegations including that of misappropriation. Hence, it is submitted that for all practical purposes, the present motion of no-confidence is being moved on the basis of allegations made earlier. It is further contended that there would be no security of tenure if the motion of no-confidence is permitted to be moved without assigning any reasons.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate states that by the order dated 05.02.2019, this Court had permitted the members to move a fresh motion of no-confidence as per law and states that there is no infirmity as regards violation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
4. It is noticed that the complaint at Annexure- E dated 13.02.2019 is one without allegations and the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-E1 dated 14.02.2019 also is to the effect that the complaint does not set out any allegations.
5. The petitioner is also aware of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in so far as representation has been addressed to the Assistant Commissioner on 14.02.2019. Hence, the say of the learned Additional Government Advocate that notice has been served in time is to be accepted and is not controverted. No grounds are made as regards violation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
6. The right to move a motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for brevity) cannot be restricted, except as provided for under the Act. There is no bar as regards the right to move motion of no- confidence except for the period of 30 months as envisaged under 2nd proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act.
7. It is clear that as per Section 46 of the Act, the tenure of the members of the Adhyaksha in subject to the other provisions of the Act and hence, without any restriction being under Section 49(1) of the Act, to move motion of no-confidence simpliciter after the period of 30 months, no such restriction could be imposed as regards rights of the members.
Accordingly, no grounds are made out to interfere with the motion of no-confidence, pursuant to the complaint at Annexure-E dated 14.02.2019. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RB