IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.6969/2019 (LB-ELE) Between:
Sri Sudhakar, S/o Nagendrappa, Aged about 37 years, President, Kunchuru Gram Panchayat, Harapanahalli Taluk, Ballary District – 583 213, (Earlier in Davanagere District). … Petitioner (By Sri Anil Kumar J.M., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Harapanahalli Sub-Division, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District – 583 131.
3. Sri Azmathulla. S/o G. Dadapeer.
4. Smt. Uma N.G., W/o Gururaj.
5. Sri G. Nagaraj, S/o Shankarappa.
6. Smt. C. Hanummavva, D/o Thirukappa.
7. Smt. Kausarabi, W/o Mohammed Saab.
8. Poojari Jayabai, W/o Shivamurthy Nayak.
9. M. Sattar Saab, S/o Imaam Saab.
10. Smt. Saarambi, W/o Imaam Saab.
11. Sri K. Phakeera Nayak, S/o Kubba Nayak.
12. B. Thirukappa, S/o Kariyappa.
13. Vinodabai, W/o Bheema Naik.
14. Idiyappanara Ningamma, W/o E. Shankarappa.
15. Kasturamma, W/o Siddappa.
16. Thigari Yella Reddy, S/o Thigari Govinda Reddy.
17. M. Ningappa, S/o Basavarajappa.
18. Ananda Reddy, S/o Vamadeva Reddy.
19. Mahadevakka, W/o Somappa.
20. T. Lakshmi, W/o T. Parashuram.
Respondent Nos.3 to 20 are all Members of Gram Panchayat, Kunchuru, Harapanahalli Taluk, Bellari District. … Respondents (By Sri M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1 & R-2; Sri Ranganatha A., Advocate for R-4 to R-6, R-8, R-9, R-11, R-13, R-14 to R-20;
R-3 & R-12 are deleted v/o dated 18.03.2019; R-7 & R-10 served) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned meeting notice dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure- G) issued by the respondent No.2 by declaring the same is illegal and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has assailed the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-G dated 04.02.2019 fixing the date for considering the motion of no-confidence on 19.02.2019.
2. A perusal of the complaint at Annexure-F dated 28.01.2019 indicates that there are allegations and hence, the said motion of no-confidence would come within the ambit of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
3. In light of the law laid down in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2019 (1) Kar.L.J.94, it is clear that the motion of no-confidence with allegations cannot be considered till appropriate Rules are framed by the State.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 11 and 13 to 21 has filed a memo stating that the said respondents intend to withdraw the complaint submitted to the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner on 28.01.2019.
5. In light of the said memo and submissions made, the notice at Annexure-G dated 04.02.2019 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the members to move a fresh motion of no-confidence in accordance with law under Section 49 of the Act. If the said motion of no-confidence is moved, the Assistant Commissioner to consider the same strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
Petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR