IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.795/2019 (LB-RES) Between:
Smt. T.N Ramalakshmamma W/o Muniraju Aged about 45 years President Kotagal Grama Panchayat Chintamani Taluk Chikkaballpur District R/at Sujjanahalli Kotagal Post, Chintamani Taluk Chikkaballapur District – 563 125 ... Petitioner (By Sri. Chandrakanth R.Goulay, Advocate) And:
1. The State Of Karnataka By its Secretary Department OF Rural Development And Panchayat Raj M.S. Building Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Chikkaballapur Sub-Division Chikkaballapur - 563 125 3. The Executive Officer Zilla Panchayath Chikkaballapur – 563 125 4. Sri. Subramani S/o late Chikkamunivenkatappa Aged major 5. Sri. Sri Devaraju S/o late S. Ramanna Age major 6. Sri. Narasimhappa S/o late Konnappa Age major 7. Sri. Muniraju S/o Narappa Age major 8. Smt. Shobamma W/o Muniyappa Age major 9. Smt. Sushellamma W/o Muniyappa Age major 10. Smt. Subbamma W/o Chinnappa Age major 11. Smt. Subbalakshmamma W/o Ashwathappa Age major 12. Smt. Saraswathamma W/o late Narasimhappa Age major 13. Smt. Rathnamma W/o Munivenkatareddy Age major 14. Sri. Ameersab S/o Hydarsab Age major 15. Sri. Rudrappa S/o Kaivaramappa Age major Respondent Nos.4 to 15 r/at Kotagal Grama Panchayat Chintamani Taluk Chikkaballapur District – 563 125 ... Respondents (By Sri. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2 Sri. S.N.Aswathanarayana, Advocate for C/R7) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for relevant records and quash the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 as per annexure-E as arbitrary, illegal and void and in violation of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and the Panchayath Raj Act and to declare that the respondent No-2 is not empowered to initiate the impugned notice in view of the report dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure-C) and in view of the three consecutive complaints being filed, acting upon and rejected and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner who is the President of the Kotagal Grama Panchayath has filed the present petition challenging the notice at Annexure-E, wherein the Assistant Commissioner has convened a meeting on 10.01.2019 at 1.30 p.m. to consider the motion of no- confidence moved by the members. The complaint is at Annexure-D which is submitted by the members and a bare reading would reveal the same to be one which is made without allegations and could be construed to be a motion of No-Confidence moved in terms of Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on an earlier occasion, motion of No-Confidence was moved and when a report was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner nothing substantial came out of it to support the allegations made against the petitioner. The counsel on this regard draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-C. The petitioner states that a fresh complaint has been made oblivious to the report which indicates that the allegations made out is devoid of merits.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the curtailment of the tenure of the elected members cannot be permitted on the face of repeated action of moving No-Confidence motion. The said position as regards the security of tenure has been dealt by this Court in W.P.Nos.124-125/2019, wherein this Court has observed at para No.4 of the judgment, re-produced herein below:-
“It is clear that in so far as the tenure of the members of the bodies are concerned, the tenure is fixed as per Section 46 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 subject to other provisions of the Act. The curtailment of the tenure of the members would be either under Sections 48, 43-A or by Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Hence, in the present case, the moving of the motion of no confidence beyond the period of 30 months cannot be faulted. Section 49 envisages the moving of no confidence which could either be one without allegations under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 or being one with allegations as contemplated under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993”.
In the present case, noticing that the tenure of elected members would be subject to Sections 43 (2), 48 and 49 of the Act and that there is no bar as such to move a motion of No-Confidence under Section 49, no ground is made out for interference in moving motion of No-Confidence now sought to be considered in the meeting to be held on 10.01.2019.
4. It is apt to refer to the observation of a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (W.A. No.844/2018 & connected matters) at Para No.40 wherein the court has specifically observed that right to move a motion of No- Confidence simpliciter under Section 49(1) of the Act is not taken away and would continue despite Section 49(2) of the Act. Consequently, even after the lapse of 30 months, there would be no legal embargo on the members moving the motion of No-Confidence under Section 49(1) of Act. No other grounds have been made out for interference in the Annexure-C.
Accordingly, the above said writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NR