Karnataka High Court
Smt. Girija Bai vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2019
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.14652 OF 2019 C/W 11784 OF 2019
(LB-ELE)
IN W.P. NO.14652/2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. GIRIJA BAI
W/O SHANKARA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRESIDENT
ANBURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RESIDENT OF ANBURU VILLAGE
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.,)
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
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
HARAPANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-573134
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUK PANCHAYATH
JAGALUR TALUK, JAGALUR
2
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
AND RETURING OFFICER
ANBURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
5. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA B
S/O POOJARI BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
6. SRI. ANANDA N. T
S/O THIPPERUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O JYOTHIPURA
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
7. SRI. O JAYANNA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
8. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O GOWDARA HAMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O HANUMAVVANAGTHIHALLI
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
9. SRI. M B KARIBASAPPA
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O THIMMALAPURA
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
3
10. SMT. N. NAGAVENI
W/O THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
11. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O A G ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU
GOLLARAHATTI JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
12. SMT. ERAMMA
W/O B K ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU
GOLLARAHATTI JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
13. SMT. S SHANTHAMMA
W/O K MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O MADAMUTHANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
14. SMT. G B SHOBHA
W/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O KANANAKATTE
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
15. SRI. HOTTEGOWDA
S/O GUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU GOLLARAHATTI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
16. SMT. SHAMEEM BHANU
W/O DADAHULI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
4
R/O GOGUDDU VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
17. SRI. SANNA PEEKA NAYAK
S/O NARASIMHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O BYATAGARANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
18. SRI. G P GUDDAPPA
S/O NEELAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O ANUBURU GOLLARAHATTI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
19. SRI. G M SAYID
S/O KARIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O GOGUDDU VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
20. SRI T GUDDAPPA
S/O GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O ANUBURU
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
21. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O GUDDADA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH RAO AAG A/W
SRI. ANANDEESWAR D.R., HCGP FOR R1-R2 & R4
SRI. BALU MAHENDRA.Y.H. FOR R-3
SRI. A.V. SRIHARI FOR R5 TO R-21)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 25.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE
R-4 AS PER ANENXURE-C AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID
AND WOULD AMOUNT TO SUBJUDICE IN VIEW OF THE
PENDENCY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P. NO.11784/2019
AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE SUITABLE ORDERS.
IN W.P. NO.11784/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GIRIJA BAI
W/O SHANKARA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRESIDENT OF
ANBURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RESIDENT OF ANBURU VILLAGE
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 134.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYARAJ,
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. ANBURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
6
4. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O POOJARI BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
5. SRI. ANANDA N. T
S/O THIPPERUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O JYOTHIPURA
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
6. SRI. O JAYANNA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
7. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O SANJEEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O HANUMAVVANAGATHIHALLI
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
8. SRI. M B KARIBASAPPA
S/O BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O ANBURU
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
9. SMT. N. NAGAVENI
W/O THIPPESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
10. SMT. THIMMAKKA
W/O A G ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
7
R/O ANABURU GOLLARAHATTI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528.
11. SMT. ERAMMA
W/O B K ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU
GOLLARAHATTI JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
12. SMT. S SHANTHAMMA
W/O K MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O MADAMUTHANAHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
13. SMT. G B SHOBHA
W/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O KANKATTE
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
14. SRI. HOTTEGOWDA
S/O GUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O ANABURU GOLLARAHATTI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
15. SMT. SHAMEEM BHANU
W/O DADAHULI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O GOGGUDUD HALLI,
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
16. SRI. SANA PEEKA NAYAK
S/O NARASIMHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O BYATAGARHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
8
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
17. SRI. G P GUDDAPPA
S/O NEELAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O ANUBURU GOLLARAHATTI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
18. SRI. G M SAYID
S/O KARIM SAB
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O GOGUDUD HALLI,
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
19. SRI T GUDAPPA
S/O GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O ANBURU
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
20. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O GUDDAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O DODDABOMMANHALLI
JAGALURU TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 573 528.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH RAO AAG A/W
SRI. ANANDEESWAR D.R., HCGP FOR R1-R2
SRI. A.V. SRIHARI FOR C/R4 TO R-20
SRI. BALU MAHENDRA.Y.H. FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DTD:2.3.2019 ISSUED BY R-1 CONVENING THE
MEETING OF ANBURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT AT 11.00 AM ON
22.3.2019 TO DECIDE ON THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION
ALLEGED TO BE MOVED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/PRESIDENT OF ANBURU GRAM PANCHAYAT,
9
THE COPY OF NOTICE DTD:2.3.2019 IS PRODUCED HERE
WITH AS ANNEXURE-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS'
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.11784/2019 and W.P. No.11534/2019 and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 21 who are the applicants in I.A. 1/2019 praying for vacating the interim order of stay granted in W.P. No.14652/2019. Matter was listed yesterday and after hearing the counsels, hearing is adjourned to today.
2. Facts in brief:-
The petitioner was elected as a member of Anburu Grama Panchayath and that later she also came to be elected as a President of the Panchayath and that she was dutifully and diligently discharging her duties and while so discharging her duties, she was visited with an order dated 06.03.2019 issued by the first respondent whereby the first respondent upholding the allegations of misappropriation of funds in 10 the execution of 14th Financial Scheme was pleased to hold that the charges having been proved, the petitioner is liable to be removed from the post of President of the Panchayat and also from the membership of the Panchayath in terms of the provisions of Section 43-A and 48(4) of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act').
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court in W.P. No.11534/2019 contesting the legality of the impugned order on the ground that no enquiry was conducted nor was she put on notice. This court after hearing the petitioner by interim order dated 18.03.2019 was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order for a period of four weeks and thereafter, the impugned order came to be extended from time to time.
4. Pursuant to the removal and passing of interim order by this court, the members of the Gram Panchayath sought to move a resolution expressing no confidence in the leadership of the petitioner. Upon the proposed motion, the Assistant Commissioner-Competent Authority issued a 11 meeting notice in compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules) read with Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993 convening the meeting to move the motion on 22.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, approached this court in W.P. No.11784/2019. This court after hearing the parties was pleased to grant an interim order, whereby proceedings pursuant to the meeting notice dated 22.03.2019, were made subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. In a sense the motion was permitted to be carried out. Consequently, the meeting was held on 22.03.2019 at the stipulated time and the motion came to be passed by the requisite majority and the petitioner stood ousted from the office and in terms of Section 49(1) of the Act in view of the passing of the motion the petitioner is deemed to have vacated the office forthwith.
5. During the pendency of the second writ petition 11784/2019 the Competent Authority-Tahsildar issued an 12 other meeting notice dated 25.03.2019 whereby, the meeting was scheduled to be held on 03.04.2019 at 1 noon for the purpose of electing the President of the Gram Panchayath. The petitioner yet again approached this court in W.P. No.14652/2019 contending that if the meeting is allowed to be completed and the motion is carried through, it would render the second writ petition infructuous as the second writ petition has been preferred calling in question the motion removing the petitioner from the office of Adhyaksha. This court by interim order dated 01.04.2019 was pleased to stay the operation of the meeting notice proposed as Annexure-C to the writ petition.
6. The private respondents i.e. the other members of the Gram Panchayath who had successfully moved the motion have now moved this application I.A. 1/2019 for vacating the interim order granted in the third writ petition i.e. W.P. No.14652/2019 whereby, this court was pleased to stay the meeting notice dated 25.03.2019. Various contentions are canvassed by the applicants. The fact 13 remains that pursuant to the meeting dated 22.03.2019 and passing of the no confidence motion, the post of President stood vacated. From the said date the Panchayat has remained headless. An effort is made by the counsel Sri. Chandrakanth R Goulay to state that in view of the interim order granted by this court, the petitioner has been continued in the post of President of the Gram Panchayath. To state the least, the said contention requires to be rejected at the threshold for such an arrangement would be in the teeth of the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:-
"49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- [(1)] Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed:"14
The provisions of the act demonstrates that on the no confidence motion being passed by majority as required under the Act, the person occupying the post of President is deemed to have vacated the office forthwith. The said motion was called in question in the W.P. No.11784/2019. This court though has deemed it fit to grant an interim order, it has not thought it fit to stay the operation of the resolution passing the no confidence motion on 22.03.2019. This court has only ordered that the impugned resolution would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would neither continue nor the respondents could have permitted the petitioner to occupy or continue in the office of the President. Hence, the said contention that the Panchayath is not headless requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
7. From the above facts, it is apparent that the earliest writ petition was called in question impugning the proceedings of the Government whereby, the petitioner was not only removed from the post of President of the 15 Panchayath but also removed from the membership of the Panchayath invoking the provisions of Section 43(a) and Section 48(4) of the Act. The said writ petition goes to the very root of the matter as it involves the membership of the petitioner to the Panchayath. The outcome in the writ petition would determine the petitioner's continuance as a member or otherwise. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the said contention requires to be considered apart. Hence, the said writ petition is de-linked and directed to be listed separately for consideration.
8. The other two writ petitions i.e. writ petitions impugning the resolution passed on 22.03.2019 removing the petitioner from the office of Presidentship and the subsequent writ petition i.e. W.P. No.11784/2019 and W.P. No.14652/2019 are interlinked and in fact the survival of the second writ petition, in fact is dependent on the orders that would be passed in the first writ petition W.P. 11784/2019. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up for consideration.
16
9. The matter was listed for consideration of interlocutory application, having heard the counsels this court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be heard finally as nothing would remain if the interim order is vacated. It is seen that in W.P. No.11784/2019, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the motion meeting notice but has also laid challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not pressing the reliefs at prayer (b) and (c). That apart, it is also seen that the Division Bench of this court while disposing batch of writ petitions in W.A. Nos.844/2018 and 853/2018 & connected matters disposed off by judgment dated 12.10.2018 has been pleased to lay down the law with regard to invocation of provisions of Section 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act.
10. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner does not intend to press the relief at prayer (b) and (c) of W.P. No.11784/2019. The writ petitions 11784/2019 and 17 14652/2019 are taken up for disposal by this judgment and hereinafter referred to as the first writ petition and second writ petition respectively for the sake of convenience. The first writ petition is preferred on the premise that the proposed motion and the subsequent resolution is contrary to the provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act as no allegations have been set out against the petitioner in the proposed motion and that being so, the same is contrary to the provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has failed to apply his mind and appreciate the fact that the members are prohibited from moving repeated motions with the intention of destabilizing the functions of the Panchayath.
11. It is contended that the notice at Annexure-A is not accompanied by the proposed motion signed by the members and that the no confidence motion moved at Annexure-A is without following the due process of law. On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the meeting notice and the consequent 18 resolution warrants interference and are required to be set- aside. The said grounds canvassed by the petitioner do not find any support either under the Act or the Rules. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the motion has been carried out in compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(2)(1) of the Rules. As regards the contention that the motion of no confidence cannot be moved except on allegations is unfounded and the said contention requires to be rejected. Section 49(1) of the Act provides for moving a motion of no confidence simplicitor without there being any allegations. In that view of the matter, the contentions canvassed in support of the relief prayed for in the first writ petition does not hold water. In that view of the matter, the first writ petition requires to be rejected. It is also no more res-integra in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk marketing Federation Limited and Others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been categorically held that even in the event there being no rules, the motion of no confidence ought to be carried out in a manner 19 similar to the manner in which the person enjoying the post of Presidentship was elected to such office. In that view of the matter, also the contention that the motion of no confidence cannot be moved except on the basis of allegations is baseless. It would suffice if the majority of the members, as stipulated under the Act, which is 2/3rd of the elected members, pass the resolution expressing no confidence in the leadership of the person occupying the post of President or Vice President. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the motion expressing no confidence and the resolution came to be passed on 22.03.2019 by a majority of the members in compliance with the provisions of statute. In that view of the matter, the motion moved and passed on 22.03.2019 is in compliance with the provisions and mandate of the statute. In that view of the matter, the first writ petition being devoid of merits requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
12. The second writ petition is called in question impugning the meeting notice dated 25.03.2019 calling for 20 a meeting for the purpose of electing the President of the Panchayath. The petitioner has suffered an order whereby, the petitioner has been removed from the very membership of the Panchayath. But the same has been intervened with by this court and the operation of the said proceedings had been stayed. In the light of the said interim order granted by this court the petitioner has been effectively continued as a member of the Gram Panchayat.
13. There can be no dispute with the fact that these bodies of local governance have been constituted with the object of nurturing leaders at the gross root levels with the hope that they would mature into statesmen and lead the society. Apparently, the object being the persons coming through the system could transform themselves into leaders of the society to render yeomen service and uphold the spirit of democracy. The constitution of the local self- governing bodies is pursuant to the constitutional mandate inserted vide the Seventy-third Amendment Act, 1992 whereby, Part IX pertaining to Articles 243, 243A to 243-O of the Constitution came to be inserted with effect from 21 24.04.1993 and vide Article 243B of the Constitution, the Gram Panchayaths or the Panchayath at the village level, constitute the basic structure of local governance. Thus the concept of local self-governance is a creature of the constitution and framed by the parliament with the avowed objective of nurturing and promoting democracy at gross root levels. That being the object of the constitution, interference is undesirable in matters of election to such bodies and ought to be minimal. In fact the said objective of minimizing interference of court is reflected in the framing and insertion of Article 243-O of the Constitution which abhors interference by the courts in the election matters.
14. In the instant case, the interim order has been granted after the calendar of events have been issued on 25.03.2019 vide Annexure-C bearing proceedings No.RA.CHU:CR: 01 :2015-16 whereby, the date of election was fixed as 03.04.2019. In that view of the matter and also the case canvassed by the learned Addl. Advocate General merits consideration. It is not in dispute that the 22 body of local self-governance has remained headless which is impermissible. In that view of the matter, the second writ petition also requires to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. While so dismissing, it is made clear that the petitioner is also entitled to participate in the election process to be re-scheduled by the competent authority. Interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved.
These writ petitions i.e. 14652/2019 C/w 11784/2019 are de-linked from W.P. No.11534/2019.
In view of the above order, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Chs*