Karnataka High Court
Smt. M Latha vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.11364 OF 2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. M. LATHA,
W/O SHRI K. RAVI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O NO.361, PREMA
KASTURI NIVASA,
CHANGAVARA,
GOWDAGERE HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK.
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
PRESIDENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT
TUMAKURU-572 101. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KANTHA RAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DIVISION
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
SHANTHINAGAR
K. H. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027.
-2-
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
TUMAKURU-572 101.
4. SMT. K.YASHODAMMA,
W/O SHIVANNA
AGE. MAJOR
5. S .T. MAHALINGAIAH,
S/O THIMMARAYAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
6. H. V. VENKATESH,
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
7. PAPANNA K. S.,
S/O SIGUVAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
8. BOMMAIAH,
S/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
9. Y. C. SIDDARAMAIAH
S/O Y S CHIKKANNA
AGE. MAJOR
10 . H. KENCHAMARAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE. MAJOR
11 . G RAMANJANEYA
S/O GANGAMARAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
12 . KALLESH
S/O NINGAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
13 . PADMA
W/O KEMAPANNA
AGE. MAJOR
-3-
14 . BHAGYAMMA
W/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGE. MAJOR
15 . MANJULA SESHAGIRI
W/O B. R. SESHGIRI
AGE. MAJOR
16 . Y. H. HUCHAIAH,
S/O HUCHAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
17 . SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O JAYARAM
AGE. MAJOR
18 . THIMMAIAH KONDAVADI
S/O HANUMATHARAYAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
19 . ANASUYAMMA
W/O LATE Y K RAMAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
20 . VARALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O NAGARAJU
AGE. MAJOR
21 . SMT. MAMATA UMESH,
HUSBAND NOT KNOWN
AGE. MAJOR
22 . GAYATRIBAI,
W/O L SHANKARMURTHY
AGE. MAJOR
23 . GOWRAMMA
W/O D. H. THIMAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
-4-
24 . LAKSHMINARASAIAH T. K.,
S/O KEMPAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
25 . D. S. RAKSHITSANKAREGOWDA,
S/O D. N. SANKAREGOWDA
AGE. MAJOR
26 . B. C. JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O CHANNAVIRAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
27 . S RAMAKRISHNA
S/O SANNIRAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
28 . SMT. GIRIJAMMA SRIRANGA YADAV,
W/O SRIRANGA YADAV,
AGE. MAJOR
29 . NARAYANAMURTHY,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
30 . SMT BHAGYA M. D. RAMESHGOWDA
HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE. MAJOR
31 . MYLARI M.
S/O MUNIYAPPA K
AGE. MAJOR
32 . SMT PARVATHAMMA
W/O K PRABHAKAR
AGE. MAJOR
33 . M. S. GAYATRIDEVI,
W/O NAGARAJU
AGE. MAJOR.
34 . SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI,
W/O NARSIMHARAJU J N
AGE. MAJOR
-5-
35 . G. V. RENUKA
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGE. MAJOR
36 . R. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
S/O RANGAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
37 . CHENNAMALLAPPA,
S/O EERAMALLAPPA ,
AGE. MAJOR
38 . H. T. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
39 . G. NARAYANA
S/O GUTHAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
40 . G. R. SHIVARAMAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAMUTHAIAH
AGE. MAJOR.
41 . SMT PREMA MAHALINGAPPA
W/O H K MAHALINGAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
42 . S. H. RAJANNA,
S/O LATE HANUMATHAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
43 . K. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE HUMBAIAH
AGE. MAJOR
44 . SMT SHIVAMMA,
D/O NAGARAJ
AGE. MAJOR
45 . SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O SIDDHANANJAPPA
AGE. MAJOR
-6-
46 . DR. NAVYA BABU G. C.,
HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE. MAJOR
47 . SMT K. R. BHARATI HITESH,
HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE. MAJOR
48 . G. H. JAGANATH,
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGE. MAJOR
49 . SMT AMBUJA N.,
W/O S R GOWDA
AGE. MAJOR
50 . SMT D. V. LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O NARSIMHAMURTHY
AGE. MAJOR
51 . SMT. SHARADHA N
W/O NARSIMAMURTHY
AGE. MAJOR
RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 51
ARE ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
TUMAKURU-572 101. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
BY SRI. SHARATH S.GOWDA , ADVOCATE FOR R3,
C/R4, AND R4 TO R51)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 30.09.2020
ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN FORM-II AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is an elected member of Zilla Panchayat, Tumakuru. The petitioner is also elected Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat. The petitioner has called in question the meeting Notice dated 30.09.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, consequent to the proposal of 'Motion of No-confidence' expressed by some of the members of the Zilla Panchayat, vide a communication dated 10.09.2020.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 180 (2) (a) read with Section 179 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ), some of the members communicated by a letter dated 10.09.2020 both to the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat expressing their 'No-confidence' and therefore sought for a meeting to enable the 'Motion of No-confidence'. Consequently, the Regional -8- Commissioner, issued a Notice dated 22.09.2020 fixing the date of meeting for consideration of the motion on 07.10.2020. However, on 30.09.2020 one more Notice was issued by the Regional Commissioner, which states that in view of the Calendar of Events being issued by the Election Commissioner on 29.09.2020, scheduling the elections for the Biennual Election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Karnataka South-East Graduates Constituency and Bangalore Teacher's Constituency and in view of the fact that the Returning Officer being statutory officer must stay in the office of the Returning Officer till 12.10.2020, the earlier date for consideration of the 'Motion of No- confidence' was rescheduled to be conducted on 15.10.2020, considering the 10 days period for serving the notice to the members as per the Rule 3(2) of the Rules.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has notified the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion -9- of No-confidence against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') w. e. f. 15.09.2020. It is submitted that once the Rules were brought into effect, the Regional Commissioner was required to follow the Rules. It is submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules would provide that the Regional Commissioner or equivalent officer as the case may be, was required to convene a meeting for consideration of the ''Motion of No-confidence' within a period of 15 days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 was given to him. The learned counsel submits that though the members had given the proposal for motion on 10.09.2020, before the Rules were brought into effect, however, while re-fixing the date of meeting, the Regional Commissioner was required to take into consideration the provisions of the Rules.
4. Learned Counsel Sri. Sharath S Gowda appearing for respondent No.4, who had filed Caveat on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that he has -10- instructions to appear for other private respondents who are the members of the Zilla Panchayat. Learned counsel submits that the Rules were brought into effect on 15.09.2020, while the proposal for meeting was given by the members in terms of Section 179 of the Act, on 10.09.2020. It is therefore submitted that the Rules cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has furnished the original records from the office of the Regional Commissioner. As could be seen from the communication dated 14.10.2020 made by the Regional Commissioner to the learned Additional Government Advocate, while re-fixing the date as 15.10.2020, the Regional Commissioner has taken note of the Rules i.e., Rule 3(2) of the Rules to say that the requirement of 10 days as provided under rule 3(2) of the Rules are required to be complied with and therefore the date of meeting is scheduled on 15.10.2020. This shows that the Regional Commissioner was aware of the requirement of the -11- new Law. Even otherwise, if the impugned notice is held to be in violation of the new Rules, liberty is required to be granted to the members of the Zilla Panchayat, who may proceed in accordance with new Rules.
6. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers including the original records furnished by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice could be met if the impugned meeting Notice dated 30.09.2020, is set aside, while granting liberty to the respondents- members of Zilla Panchayat to once again move the proposal for 'Motion of No-confidence' in terms of the new Rules, 2020.
7. Needless to observe that the Regional Commissioner shall follow the procedure and time schedule as contemplated in the Rules, 2020, while considering the 'Motion of No-confidence' that would be expressed by the members of the Zilla Panchayat. -12-
8. Consequently, the impugned Notice dated 30.09.2020 at Annexure-G, is hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty as stated above is reserved to the private respondents i.e., members of the Zilla Panchayat to once again move a fresh proposal for 'Motion of No-confidence' against the petitioner in terms of the new Rules, 2020.
9. Operative portion of the order shall be served on the learned Additional Government Advocate so as to ensure that the same is communicated to the Regional Commissioner, forthwith.
10. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL