Karnataka High Court
Smt C Pushpa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 824, 2019 (2) AKR 720, (2019) 2 KCCR 1763
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1 W.P. 56397/2018
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No. 56397/2018 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN :
Smt. C. Pushpa
Aged about 38 years
W/o. V.K. Ravi
Adhyaksha of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Vaddarahalli Village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Bhadrinath R., Adv.)
AND :
1. The State of Karnataka
Panchayath Raj Department
M.S. Building
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru - 560 001
By its Secretary.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Pandavapura Sub-Division
Pandavapura Taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
2 W.P. 56397/2018
3. The K. Bettahalli Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
Rep. by its Panchayat
Development Officer.
4. Sri. H.C. Cheluvaraj
S/o. Chikka Gowda
Aged about 35 years
R/a. Hulkere Village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
5. Sri. K.L. Pradeep Kumar
Aged about 35 years
S/o. Lokesh
R/a. K. Bettahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
6. Sri. Karigowda
Aged about 53 years
S/o. Ninge Gowda
R/a. K. Bettahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
3 W.P. 56397/2018
7. Smt. Savitha
Aged about 36 years
W/o. Narayana
R/a. K. Bettahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
8. Sri. Basavaraju N.
Aged about 45 years
S/o. Nanja Achari
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Chagashettihalli Village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
9. Sri. Boregowda S.N.
Aged about 34 years
S/o. Nanjunda Gowda
R/a. Shamboonahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
10. Smt. Jayalakshmamma
Aged about 42 years
W/o. Sheena Achair
R/a. Shamboonahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
4 W.P. 56397/2018
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
11. Sri. Jayaprakash D.M.
Aged about 37 years
S/o. Mada Gowda
R/a. Damadahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
12. Sri. Gopal
Aged about 48 years
S/o. Chikkaswamy
R/a. Damudahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
13. Smt. Jyothi
Aged about 34 years
W/o. Muralidhar
R/a. Damudahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
14. Sri. Lohith
Aged about 30 years
S/o. Ankaiya
R/a. K. Bettahalli village
5 W.P. 56397/2018
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
15. Smt. Anitha
Aged about 43 years
W/o. Gopal
R/a. K. Bettahalli village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
16. Smt. Mariyamma
Aged about 40 years
W/o. Shiva Nayak
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Vaddarahalli village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
17. Smt. Vanajakshi
Aged about 30 years
W/o. Mohan Kumar
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Vaddarahalli village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
6 W.P. 56397/2018
18. Sri. V.S. Suresh
Aged about 28 years
S/o. Swamy Gowda
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Vaddarahalli village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
19. Smt. Mangalamma
Aged about 39 years
W/o. Nagesh
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
R/a. Hulkere village
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist.
20. Sri. Yogesh
Aged about 30 years
S/o. Muncha Gowda
R/a. Hulkere Koppalu village
Member of K. Bettahalli
Gram Panchayat
Kasaba Hobli
Pandavapura taluk - 571 434
Mandya Dist. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M.A. Subramni, HCGP, for R-1 & R-2;
Sri. B.J. Somayaji, Adv., for R-3;
Sri. S. Vivek Reddy, Sr.Adv., for
Sri. Dilli Rajan N., Adv., for R-4 to 18;
R-19 & 20 are served through hand summons)
7 W.P. 56397/2018
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the order/notice dated 11.12.2018 and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Hearing -
Interlocutory Application this day, the Court made
the following;
ORDER
The petitioner is the Adhyaksha of K. Bettahalli Gram Panchayat and has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.12.2018 fixing the date for consideration of the motion of no confidence as 26.12.2018.
2. The undisputed facts being that the election of the members of the Gram Panchayat held was on 05.06.2015. The Adhyaksha was elected immediately thereafter. It is stated that Adhyaksha having resigned on 13.07.2017 the petitioner came to be elected as Adhyaksha on 24.07.2017. The motion of no-confidence came to be moved against the 8 W.P. 56397/2018 petitioner by submission of a petition to the Assistant Commissioner on 27.11.2018.
3. The petitioner has assailed the issuance of notice by the Assistant Commissioner on the sole ground that as per the second proviso to Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), no motion of no-confidence could be moved within the period of `first 30 months from the date of his election'. Hence it is contended that the petitioner having been elected as an Adhyaksha on 24.07.2017 the question of entertaining motion of no- confidence within the period of first 30 months from the date of commencement of his term is not permitted under the law.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri. Vivek Reddy appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 18 submits that the period of 30 months is to be calculated from the 9 W.P. 56397/2018 date of election of Adhyaksha for the first time and the question of permitting any other interpretation would result in absurdity. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that Section 51 of the Act makes it clear that even in the event of any vacancy that is created, an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha subsequently elected would hold office so long as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha who was elected at the first instance would hold the office.
5. Sri. M.A. Subramani, learned Government Pleader would also contend that the period of 30 months is to be calculated from the date of election of Adhyaksha for the first time.
6. Having heard the counsel on both the sides the point that arises for consideration is:-
What is the point of commencement of 30 months as envisaged under second proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act?10 W.P. 56397/2018
7. A plain reading of second proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act appears to indicate that there is a bar as regards moving of a motion of no-confidence 'within the first 30 months from the date of his election'. It is to be noted that the term of office as regards Adhyaksha under Section 46 of the Act is 5 years from the date of his election or till he ceases to be a member of the Grama Panchayat which ever is earlier. It ought to be noticed that earlier the term of office under the un-amended Section 46 of the Act was 30 months. Similarly the prohibition under the second proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act earlier was one year. The time of one year and five years as found under Section 49(1) and Section 46 of the Act have been altered by way of an amendment insofar as the term of office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha is now five years as per the amendment inserted on 30.04.2015 by amendment Act No. 17/2015, and almost contemporaneously an amendment of second 11 W.P. 56397/2018 proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act which provides for the period of prohibition to move a motion of no confidence came to be altered to 30 months as per the amendment made on 23.02.2016 by amendment Act No. 44/2015. Hence, it becomes clear that the legislature in its wisdom while making the amendment to Section 46 as well as Section 49 of the Act has by a conscious legislative intent altered the period of prohibition as well as the period of office of the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as noticed by amendments. To accept the contention that the period of 30 months as a prohibition to move the motion of no-confidence, would commence from the date of the Adhyaksha having been elected, though would appear at first blush to be a correct literal interpretation, adoption of such an interpretation in the present facts would lead to absurdity where the prohibition under Section 49(1) of the Act is sought to be made applicable where the Adhyaksha is elected 12 W.P. 56397/2018 for the second time consequent to the resignation of the Adhyaksha elected at the earlier instance. If this interpretation is accepted then the bar envisaged under the second proviso to Section 49 would come into play whenever an Adhyaksha is elected. If Adhyaksha resigns or vacancy arises and an Adhyaksha is elected once again and if the bar under second proviso is to operate then no motion of no- confidence can be moved during the whole term of 60 months. Obviously such an interpretation would lead to absurdity. The correct interpretation keeping in mind, the objective and intent of the statute by adopting an appropriate rule of interpretation would be to assign the appropriate meaning for the word `from the date of his election' by taking into account the period as prescribed under Section 46 read with Section 51 of the Act, which would be that the term of 30 months is to be calculated from the date of the first election of Adhyaksha. This also becomes 13 W.P. 56397/2018 clear from the use of the words `within first 30 months' as provided under second proviso to Section 49 of the Act.
8. It is to be noticed that by way of an interim order passed by this Court on 19.12.2018 notice of the Assistant Commissioner was stayed. In view of the construction to be placed to the provisions as noticed above, the petition is dismissed holding that the period of 30 months would commence from the date of election of first Adhyaksha and hence, it is clear that the commencement of 30 months could not be from 24.07.2017. The period of 30 months already having expired the motion under Section 49(1) of the Act is permissible.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
LRS.