Karnataka High Court
Mohini V Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1557
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.7427 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Smt. Mohini V Shetty
W/o Vishwanath Shetty
Aged about 46 years
Adyaksha, Venuru Grama Panchayath
Korambu Kulenji Hiouse
Moodukodi Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Panchayath Raj Development
M.S. Building
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru-560 001
By its Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Puttur Sub Division
Puttur, D.K. District-544 201.
3. The Venuru Grama Panchayath
Venuru Village
Belthangadi Taluk
2
D.K. District-574 242
Represented by its
Panchayath Development Officer
4. Arun Crasta
S/o. Thomas Crasta
Aged about 50 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Bajir Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
5. Smt. Sharada
W/o. Vasantha
Aged about 43 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Bajir Village, Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
6. Rajesh Poojary
S/o Mandappa Poojary
Aged about 47 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Kaiteri House, Venuru Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
7. Victor Menezaz
S/o Ligori Manezaz
Aged about 52 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Ashirvada Nilaya, Venuru Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
8. Sri. Nemayya Kulal
S/o Gonaiah Moolya
Aged about 48 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
3
Shivaprasadh Bahubali Bettada Bali
Venuru Village, Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
9. Sri. Ronald D'Souza
S/o. Anthony D'Souza
Aged about 57 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Krusta Krupa, Kandadara Kodi House
Venuru Village, Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
10. Sri. Satish Hegde
S/o. Obayya Hegde
Aged about 50 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Shaynubogara House, Bajire Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
11. Sri. Lokayya Poojary
S/o. Babu Poojary
Aged about 55 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Kengitulu House, Bajire Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
12. Smt. Vishalakshi
W/o. Shekhar Poojary
Aged about 40 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Suvida Nivasa, Paradyaru House
Bajire Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
4
13. Smt. Leelavathi
W/o. Ananda Poojary
Aged about 55 years
Member of Venuru Grama panchyath
Kemplabari, Bajire Vilage
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
14. Smt. Kasturi
W/o. Sadananda Poojary
Aged about 60 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Neeraplaka House, Venuru Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K.District-574 242.
15. Smt. Gangashekara
W/o. Shekar
Aged about 50 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Hosapatna House, Bajire Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District.
16. Smt. Shobha Hegde
W/o. Arun Hegde
Aged about 45 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchyath
Manjanabettu, Karimanelu Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
17. Smt. Shobha @ Nayana
W/o. Honnayya Naika
Aged about 48 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Keshava Nagara, Karimanelu Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
5
18. Smt. Annu
S/o. Koraga
Aged about 45 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Padelu House, Karimanelu Village
D.K. District-574 242.
19. Sri. Yashodhara Hegde
S/o. Bujanga Hegde
Aged about 52 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Palenja House, Karimanelu Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. Distrcit-574 242.
20. Smt. Jessy Perira
W/o Sunny Perira
Aged about 63 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Moddukodi Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
21. Harish.P.S.
S/o. Seena Poojary
Aged about 40 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Kelagina Padyaru House, Moodukodi Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
22. Smt. Sahanaz
S/o. Shukru Sahib
Aged about 40 years
Member of Venuru Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
6
23. Smt. Margarate Corea
S/o. Vincent Corea
Aged about 54 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Ordelu House, Larimanelu Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K. District-574 242.
24. Sri. Lakshman Poojary
S/o. Dharanappa Poojary
Aged about 47 years
Member of Venuru Grama Panchayath
Kodibettu House, Moodukodi Village
Belthangadi Taluk
D.K.District-574 242.
... Respondents
(By Sri. M.V. Ramesh Jois, AGA for R1 and R2;
Sri. Nataraj Ballal, Advocate for Sri. Nishit
Kumar Shetty, Advocate for C/R4, R11 & R20)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
order/notice/endorsement dated 19.5.2020 by the R-2 for
conducting the meeting on 9.6.2020 to consider the motion
of no confidence against the petitioner as found at
Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day
through Video Conference, the Court made the following:
7
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be an elected member of the Venuru Gram Panchayath and holding the post of President (Adyaksha) for respondent No.3 Gram Panchayath has filed this present petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 19.05.2020 issued by respondent No.2 for conducting the meeting on 09.06.2020 in order to consider the motion of 'No Confidence' moved against the petitioner in terms of Annexure-'A' to the writ petition. Caveats have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20 and Sri.Nishit Kumar Shetty has entered appearance on their behalf.
2. Sri. M.V. Ramesh Jois, AGA appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the certain admitted facts which will be dealt with later on, I am of the considered opinion that there is no requirement to issue notice to the other respondents. 8
3. It is an admitted fact that 17 members of the Gram Panchayath have moved 'No Confidence' as regards the petitioner which has been considered by respondent No.2 and a notice in terms of Annexure-'A' has been issued on 19.05.2020 calling for a meeting on 09.06.2020 to consider the said motion at 11.30 a.m. in the office of the respondent No.3.
4. In terms of the circular issued by the first respondent dated 07.02.2018, the motion for 'No confidence' is to be moved under Section 49 by not less than 50% of the total strength of the Gram Panchayath members by issuing notice at least 10 days in advance. The Assistant Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.2 of the Puttur Sub Division would consider the said representation/motion and call for a meeting.
5. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the present 'No confidence motion' is being moved during the pandemic only to achieve the malafide motives and intentions of 9 the said persons moving the 'No confidence motion'. He further submits that during the pandemic, such motion ought not to be moved and the petitioner is to be allowed to function as Adyaksha so as to take care of the needs of the panchayath. Apart therefrom, he submits that the requirement of the circular dated 07.02.2018 has not been followed in its true spirit.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20 would contend that 17 members of the Gram Panchayath have moved the 'No confidence motion'. The Gram Panchayath consisting of 24 members thus excluding the petitioner only 6 other members have not moved the 'No confidence motion. 17 members moving the motion not only constitute 50% of the total strength of the Gram Panchayath but infact constitute two-thirds of the members who are required to vote in favour of the 'No confidence motion in terms of Section 49 of the Gram Panchayath Act.
10
7. Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20. Perused the documents.
8. It is an admitted fact that the Panchayath consists of 24 members out of which 17 members have moved 'No confidence motion' and it is those members who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 24 in these proceedings. With such an admitted fact that the number of members moving the motion for 'no confidence' exceeding 50% as required under the Circular dated 07.2.2018 and the second respondent having acted in accordance with law and the requirements under Section 49 of the Gram Panchayath Act as also the aforementioned Circular, there are no 11 legal grounds available to the petitioner to question issuance of notice calling for meeting i.e. Annexure-'A'.
9. The contention of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel appearing for petitioner that such a motion could not have been moved during pandemic is not a sustainable argument and not tenable in law. There are no legal grounds which could be considered by this Court in respect of the above writ petition in view of the fact that all the requirements under law and Circular are followed. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD