IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.56749/2018 (LB-ELE) Between Sri T.M.Byregowda S/o Muniyappa, Aged about 40 years, President, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk and District, Resident of Thippenahalli Grama Kayaloanoor Post, Kolar District-563 101. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Chandrakanth R Goulay, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Panchayaraj, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub Division, Near Court Circle, Kolar-560 101.
3. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath, Kolar-560 101.
4. Sri N. Venugopal Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
5. Sri Kubbareddi Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
6. Sri Prakash.T.C Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
7. Sri Venu.C Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
8. Sri Srinivasa.B Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
9. Smt. Venkatalakshmamma.K Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
10. Smt. Uma.B Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
11. Smt. Asha.B.M Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
12. Smt. Sarojamma Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
13. Smt. Rathnamma Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
14. Smt. Venkatalakshmamma Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
15. Smt. Mala Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
16. Smt. Amaravathi Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101.
17. Sri Khalim Pasha Aged Major, Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District-563 101. ... Respondents (By Sri R.Bhadrinath, Advocate for C/R4 Sri M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for relevant records; quash the impugned notice dated 04.12.2018 passed by R-2 vide Annexure-B as arbitrary, illegal and void and in violation of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and the Panchayath Raj Act and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who is the President of Seethi Grama Panchayat, Kolar District, has challenged the notice at Annexure-B dated 04.12.2018, wherein the Assistant Commissioner has convened the meeting on 19.12.2018 to consider the motion of no-confidence moved by the members.
2. It is admitted that the petition moving the motion of no-confidence is submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 29.10.018. Taking note of convening of meeting on 19.12.2018 on the face of it, it is contended, there is violation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’) as the Assistant Commissioner, on receiving the petition from the members has to fix a date, not later than 30 days from the date on which the petition of the members is received. If that were to be so, the convening of the meeting on 19.12.2018 is clearly beyond the period of 30 days.
3. The other contention raised is that the complaint at Annexure-A dated 29.10.2018 contains allegations and if that were to be so, it is a motion of no- confidence moved under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.844/2018, and connected matters dated 12.10.2018, till Rules are framed, no motion of no-confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act with allegation could be taken up for consideration. The said position is clear and accordingly, both on the ground that there is violation of Rule 3(2) as well as complaint being one with allegation, the motion of no-confidence cannot be taken forward.
4. In light of law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.844/2018 and connected matters, the petition is allowed and the notice at Annexure-B is set- aside. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take such action as permissible under Section 49 of the Act afresh.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Needless to state that the Assistant Commissioner to apply his mind independent of the earlier complaint, when fresh action is sought to be initiated.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-