Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharada vs The Assistant Commissioner on 11 January, 2019
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION No.54684/2018 (LB-ELE)
Between:
Smt. Sharada
Aged about 54 years
W/o M. Some Gowda
President of Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat
R/at 'Sri Manikanta Sadana'
Nidigere Post and Village
Hethur Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk
Hassan District - 573 134 ... Petitioner
(By Sri. P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
And:
1. The Assistant Commissioner
Sakaleshpura Sub-Division
Sakaleshapura
Hassan District - 573 134.
2. The Executive Officer
Taluk Panchayat
Sakaleshapura
Hassan District - 573 134.
3. Sri. Vishwanatha
S/o Sri. Puttaswamy Gowda
Aged about 45 years
R/at Adaragere Village
Nidiregere Post, Hesluru Hobli
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
2
4. Sri. G.D.Madhu
S/o Sri. Erayya
Aged about 25 years
R/at Doddanahalli Village
Nidigere Post, Hethuru Hobli
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
5. Sri. B.B.Dharamappa
Father's name not known
Aged about 50 years
R/at Belluru Village
Nidigere Post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
6. Smt. Kodamma
W/o late Thippaiah
Aged about 65 years
R/at Hadlahalli Village and post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
7. Smt. Mohini
W/o Sri. Subramanya
Aged about 30 years
R/at Shettihalli
Belluru Dakale
Nidigere Post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
8. Smt. Lakshmi
W/o Sri. Vittala Poojari
Aged about 45 years
R/at Doddanahalli Village
Nidigere Post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
9. Smt. Roopa
W/o Sri. Nagesh Nayak
Aged about 33 years
R/at Hennali Grama
Nidigere Post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134.
3
10. Sri. K.V.Manjunatha
S/o Patel Veerappa
Aged about 48 years
R/at Kuruvathuru Grama
Shukravarasanthe Post
Sakleshpura Taluk - 573 134. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura , Advocate for R1
Sri. G.LVishwanath, Advocate for R3 to R10)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice dated
01.12.2018 bearing No. Election No.6/2018-19 issued by R-1
herein which is produced as annexure-A, convening the meeting
of Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat at 12pm on 19.12.2018 to
consider the no confidence motion moved against the
petitioner/President of the panchayat and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner who is the President of Kurubathuru Grama Panchayat, has challenged the notice at Annexure-A fixing the meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence on 19.12.2018. The complaint pursuant to which notice was issued is found at Annexure-F and a bare perusal of the said petition submitted to the Assistant Commissioner indicates that specific allegations have been made. Noticing the same, learned counsel for the members 4 of Panchayat i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 10 submits that they would not continue to pursue the motion of no-confidence.
2. Taking note of the fact that if allegations are made, the motion of no-confidence would be treated as one under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') and the same cannot be taken up for consideration till separate Rules are framed as laid down by a Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (W.A. No.844/2018 & connected matters), the present notice is not sustainable.
3. Taking note of the statement of the members as well as the nature of the complaint, the notice at Annexure-A is set aside.
4. However, liberty is reserved to the members to move a fresh motion of no-confidence as is permissible under law.
5
5. The Assistant Commissioner to ensure strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(2) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 in the event of fresh motion of no-confidence being initiated by the members.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed subject to aforesaid observations.
No further order as regards I.A.No.1/2019 is called for. The matter is being disposed of without awaiting service of notice as regards respondent No.2, in light of the submission made by the counsels and noticing that the notice issued is legally not tenable as it is one that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act and hence cannot be proceeded with.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR