R WP 9960/2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.9960/2019 (LB ELE) BETWEEN SRI S THIPPESWAMY S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRESIDENT CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT R/AT CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY CHELLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577 538.
(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, ... PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATRAJ, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577538.
3. SRI B.L.JAGANNATH AGED MAJOR, MEMBER, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538.
4. SMT. KAVITHA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 5. SMT.PRATHIMA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577538 6. SRI E.RAGHAVENDRA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 7. SMT. B.CHIKKAMMA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 8. SRI C.THIPPESWAMY AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 9. SMT. B.J.SUMA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 10. SMT.LAKSHMI AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 11. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 12. SMT. SHASHIKALA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 13. SMT. S.BASAMMA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 14. SRI H.RUDRAMUNI AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 15. SMT. H.PANKAJA AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 16. SRI B.THIPPESWAMY AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 17. SRI B.JAGADISH AGED MAJOR, CHENNAMMANAGATHIHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 538 18. THE RETURNING OFFICER, BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, CHALLAKERE 27, CHANNAMMANAGATHI HALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT CHALLEKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS [R18 IMPLEADED V/C/O 27.03.2019.) (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1-R2, SRI PATIL D.KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R3-R17, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R18.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 15.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-D, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The matter is listed for consideration of interlocutory application for vacating stay. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
3. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the meeting notice dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-D) convening the meeting on 06.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering the motion of no confidence proposed by the private respondents.
4. It is the case of the petitioner, that earlier, vide Annexure-A respondents had made a complaint and moved a motion for expressing their no confidence in the petitioner. That the Assistant Commissioner on receipt of the same, forwarded the same and obtained a report and that the report absolved the petitioner of all the allegations. That the motion earlier moved is one under sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. That in view of the report absolving the petitioner, after a lapse of time, the present motion of no confidence is proposed by the respondents on 12.02.2019. On receipt of the same, the Assistant Commissioner – the authority to hold the motion of no confidence has issued the meeting notice dated 15.02.2019 convening the meeting on 06.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents having failed in their earlier attempt to move the motion of no confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act, are now trying to avail of the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Act and that the same is impermissible. It is contended that if the present proposed motion is allowed to be moved, then it would virtually amount to upholding the allegations made by the respondents on an earlier occasion under Annexure-A and it would virtually amount to removing the petitioner in the light of the allegations leveled earlier.
6. The submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, are misplaced. The provisions of Rule 3(2) to 3(9) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, sets out the procedure and the manner in which the meeting is to be conducted. Rules 3(7) & 3(8) clearly specifies that as soon as the meeting is convened, the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members the motion for consideration. The motion that is proposed for consideration is as under:
“ZÀ¼ÀîPÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ZÀ£ÀߪÀÄä£ÁUÀwºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÁzÀ J¸ï.w¥ÉàøÁé«Ä EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ C«±Áé¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀégÁeï ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvïgÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ, 1993 gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 49(1) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß CzsÀåPÀë ¸ÁÜ£À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄ ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀ vÀªÀÄä GzÉÝñÀzÀ §UÉÎ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ £ÁªÀÅ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ.”
7. The proposed motion is neither stigmatic nor does it contain any allegations and it is a simple motion expressing no confidence in the leadership of the petitioner. Rule 3(8) further mandates that the Assistant Commissioner is also disentitled to speak on the merits of the said motion, which reads as under:
“(8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon.”
8. In that view of the matter, the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are not based on any reasonable grounds. That apart, the motion of no confidence proposed under Section 49(2) of the Act has not been put to vote. In that view of the matter also, there is no bar for the instant motion of no confidence proposed now. Hence, petition stands rejected.
9. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, interim order granted earlier stands dissolved.
10. In view of disposal of main petition, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off.
KK CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE