Karnataka High Court
R Muniswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2018
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.55590/2018 (LB RES)
BETWEEN:
R. Muniswamy,
S/o. Late Rangappa,
Aged 50 years,
President and member,
Of Gollahalli Gram Panchayath,
Kengeri,
Bengaluru - 560 074. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Secretary,
Department of Panchayath Raj,
M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Kandaya Bhavana,
K.G. Road,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
2
3. The Executive Officer,
Bengaluru South Taluk Panchayath,
S. Kariyappa Road,
Banashankari,
Bengaluru - 560 070.
4. K. Gollahalli Gram Panchayath,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Gollahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 074.
Represented by
Panchayath Development Officer.
5. G.H. Kumar Swamy,
Father name not known
Aged major,
6. K.M. Mahesh,
S/o. Mahalingaiah,
Aged about 27 years,
7. Nagalakshmama,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
8. Kumar,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
9. G.N. Krishnamurthy,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
10. Narayanswamy,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
3
11. K.H. Parvathidevi,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
12. Nethravathi,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
13. Mallama,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
14. Nagaveni,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
15. K.M. Ramachandru,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
16. T.N. Lokesh,
S/o. Late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
17. K. Jyothi,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
18. Venkatama,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
19. Ashwathaiah,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
4
20. Lakshmi,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
21. Nagrathna,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
22. Santosh Kumar K.V,
S/o. Venkatappa,
Aged about 35 years,
23. N.Rukmini,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
24. M. Shashikala,
Father name not known,
Aged Major,
Respondent Nos.5 to 24 are
Members of 4th Respondent,
K.Gollahalli Gram Panchayat,
Bengaluru - 560 074. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2;
Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior counsel for
Sri. Ganesha P for R6, 16 & 22;
Notice to other respondents dispensed with)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-F
notice dated 27.11.2018 issued by the R-2 and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
5
ORDER
The learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Sri.Ganesha.P., learned counsel has entered caveat on behalf of respondent Nos.6, 16 and 22.
3. Notice to other respondents is dispensed with as the matter is being disposed at this stage itself in view of the settled position of law as referred to in the judgment in W.P.No.21239/2001.
4. The petitioner who is the President of respondent No.4-K.Gollahalli Gram Panchayath has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.11.2018 as per Annexure-E whereby, 18.12.2018 is the date which has been fixed to consider the motion of No-Confidence that is said to have been moved by the members of the Gram Panchayath. The petitioner states that on an earlier 6 occasion on 18.8.2018 the second respondent had convened a meeting on 4.10.2018 to consider the motion of No-Confidence moved by the Members. It is stated that on 4.10.2018 except R.Muniswamy, the President of the Gram Panchayath, none of the other 26 members were present. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner observing that the quorum to the meeting was absent, has dissolved the meeting. Copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 4.10.2018 is produced at Annexure-B.
5. The members subsequently on 24.11.2018 have issued a fresh notice to the Assistant Commissioner expressing their intention to move the motion of No-Confidence as against the petitioner herein. Annexure-E is the notice issued fixing the meeting to consider the motion of No-Confidence on 18.12.2018. It is also contended that the notice is in violation of Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchyath Raj 7 (Motion of No Confidence of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha Grama Panchyath) Rules, 1994 ("the Rules" for brevity), in so far as the notice made out to the Assistant Commissioner is not in the prescribed Form No.1.
6. The petitioner's primary argument however appears to be that the meeting on 4.10.2018 having been dissolved and it would not be permissible to move a fresh motion of No-Confidence in view of the bar under III proviso to Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for brevity). The precise question on identical facts has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.55252/2018. The observations made in paras 9 and 10 in W.P.No.55252/2018 speak for themselves which are reproduced herein below:
"9. On a bare reading it becomes clear that for the bar to apply the resolution 8 must have been "considered and negatived by the Gram Panchayat".
10. It is clear that as per Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-
confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, in the absence of quorum within one hour of the time fixed convening the meeting "the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under Sub-rule(1) shall lapse". The meeting has been dissolved as per the order at Annexure-H and there has been a declaration that the notice has lapsed. Once the meeting stood dissolved as per rule 3(6), there was no consideration of the Motion of No-confidence as it was not put to vote as contemplated under rule 7. It is clear that bar under 3rd proviso would come into operation only where a resolution has been considered and negatived and once notice itself is declared to have lapsed the meeting is dissolved and there being no consideration of the said resolution it cannot be said the resolution was considered and negatived." 9
7. In the judgment passed in W.P.No.47278/2011, this Court has adopted a similar interpretation as noted above and had held that the dissolution of a meeting on account of lack of quorum would not amount to a resolution having been considered and negatived as provided under III proviso to Section 49(1) of Act and hence would not amount to a bar for issuing an other notice for consideration of No-Confidence within one year. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
8. As regards the other contention that the motion of No-Confidence moved by the members of the Gram Panchayath is not in prescribed Form No.1, though such contention has been raised in the petition, it has not been seriously pressed at the time the matter was taken up for consideration. The non adhering to the requirement under Rule 3(1) of the Rules as regards motion being required being in the format prescribed 10 under Form No.1 has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Laxmavva Vs. The State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary and others reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028 wherein this Court has held such irregularities not causing prejudice would not vitiate the proceedings in the present case. No case is made out as regards prejudice as such caused to the petitioner and hence the said contention is rejected.
9. The petitioner relies on the judgment in W.P.No.21239/2001 wherein cancellation of the subsequent meeting was not interfered with where the earlier meeting due to absence of quorum could not consider the motion. The Court in the facts of the particular case has held that the notice of No-confidence was deemed to have been lapsed. as regards the judgment rendered in W.P. No.21239/2001, it could be said that no position of law has been enunciated and it 11 cannot be said that the said judgment lays down the principle of law upholding the contention as is advanced by the petitioner and the said judgment has been passed in the light of the factual matrix of that case.
10. Hence, in view of the law laid down in W.P.No.55252/2018 and in light of the discussion made above, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RS/RB