Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramachandra J vs Smt. Sujatha on 12 December, 2018
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.53944/2018 (LB-RES)
Between:
Sri Ramachandra J.,
S/o Jayaram,
Aged about 30 years,
M.C. Halli, Kasaba Hobli,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228. ...Petitioner
(By Smt. Kavitha M.S., Advocate)
And:
1. Smt.Sujatha W/o Devendra,
Aged about 35 years,
Upadhyaksha,
Grama Panchayath, M.C. Halli,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
2. Kumar S/o Armugam,
Aged about 40 years,
Grama Panchayath,
M.C.Halli, Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
3. Komala W/o Manjunath,
Aged about 38 years,
Gantekanive, M.C.Halli,
Tarikere Taluk,
2
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
4. Raju S/o Kannappa,
Aged about 45 years,
M.C.Halli Quarters,
M.C.Halli, Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
5. Ananda S/o Hiriya Swamy,
Aged about 43 years,
H.Rangapura,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore - 577 228.
6. Basavaraju S/o Savakayya,
Aged about 32 years,
M.C.Halli, Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
7. Annegowda S/o Eere Gowda,
Aged about 42 years,
Hosa Badavane, M.C.Halli,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
8. Janakamma W/o Devegowda,
Aged about 38 years,
Bhadragiri, M.C.Halli,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
9. The Executive Officer,
Taluk Panchayath,
Tarikere Sub Division,
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228.
10. The Assistant Commissioner
& Election Officer,
Tarikere Sub Division,
3
Tarikere Taluk,
Chickmagalore District - 577 228. ...Respondents
(By Sri Srinivasa Murthy S., Advocate for C/R-1 to R-8;
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R-9 & R-10)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated
24.11.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Election),
Tarikere, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of
natural justice at Annexure-E and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the notice at Annexure-E dated 24.11.2018 whereby, the meeting has been convened on 13.12.2018 to consider the motion of no-confidence.
2. The petitioner is said to have been elected as President of M.C. Halli, Grama Panchayat, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur District on 07.11.2016. It is stated that the members have made a complaint pursuant to which action is sought to be initiated and meeting has been convened by the respondent No.10 on 4 13.12.2018, and more importantly this motion of no- confidence is sought to be moved within thirty months of the petitioner being elected.
3. It is to be noted that second proviso to Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for brevity), stipulates a bar for moving any resolution within a period of first thirty months from the date of election. It has been clarified by the Courts that this bar of thirty days would not operate as regards the motion of no-confidence without allegations under Section 49(2) of the Act. However, in the light of the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.844/2018 and connected matters, the moving of the motion of no-confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act would be possible only after the Rules are framed. In light of the observations made in Writ Appeal No.844/2018 and connected matters, the present motion of no-confidence cannot be resorted to. 5
4. Learned counsel appearing for the caveator- respondent Nos.1 to 8 contends that there are serious allegations of malpractice and misconduct as regards the petitioner in question and it cannot be said that he is left with no remedy. However, in light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.844/2018 and connected matters, the present motion of no-confidence cannot be considered. However, liberty is always reserved to the members to move the motion of no-confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act, once the Rules are framed and also to move the Government under Section 43-A and 48(4) of the Act for appropriate proceedings in light of the allegations, in accordance with law.
Petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR