Karnataka High Court
Smt Shyamala K vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2022
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.17527 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHYAMALA K.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O MONAPPA GOWDA
R/AT KONDEMANE
SUNKADAKATTE POST
AITHUR VILLAGE
KADABA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 221.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ
3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION
PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201.
2
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
AITHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KADABA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 230.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3- SERVED
SRI. P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED
RESPONDENT IN IA.1/2022)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE PROVISION OF NO CONFIDENCE
MOTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 49 OF THE KARNATAKA
GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 IS IN
APPLICABLE WHERE THE POST OF PRESIDENT/VICE
PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT FALLS UNDER THE
RESERVED CATEGORY AND THERE IS ONLY ONE ELECTED
MEMBER BELONGING TO THE SAID RESERVED CATEGORY
AMONG THE MEMBERS OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, AND
CONSEQUENTLY DECLARE THAT SECTION 49 OF THE ACT
CAN NOT BE INVOKED AGAINST THE PETITIONER DURING
THE TERM OF HER OFFICE AS PRESIDENT (FROM
18.02.2021 TO 18.08.2023) I.E., FOR A PERIOD OF 30
MONTHS PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION AS PRESIDENT OF
THE GRAM PANCHAYAT VIDE ANNX-D.
THIS PETITION BEING HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Present petition is filed seeking following reliefs;
"i) Issue a writ or appropriate orders or directions declaring that the provision of no confidence Motion provided in Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is inapplicable where the post of President/Vice President of Gram Panchayat falls under the reserved category and there is only one elected member belonging to the said reserved category among the members of gram panchayat" and consequently declare that Section 49 of the Act can not be invoked against the petitioner during the term of the office as President (From 18.08.2021 to 18.08.2023) i.e., for a period of 30 months pursuant to her election as president of the Gram Panchayat vide Annexure - D;
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the notice bearing
No.ELNCR:11/2022-23 dated:
19.08.2022 issued by Assistant
Commissioner, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur/Respondent No.2 whereby the Second Respondent has convened meeting of the Aithoor Gram Panchayat on 08.09.2022 at 11.30 am to consider the no-confidence motion moved against the Petitioner/President of Aithoor Gram Panchayat, vide Annexure -'F' and all further proceedings in the said case in the interest of justice and equity.
4
iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice".
2. It is the case of the petitioner that there are 11 elected members in Aithoor Gram Panchayat, which is formed under the provisions of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1993). That the post of the President was reserved to a candidate belonging to the backward class 'B' women category. That the petitioner is the lone member elected to the said Panchayat in the said category out of 11 elected members. That the Chief Executive Officer, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur issued a notice dated 08.02.2021 for the purpose of convening a meeting of the elected members of the aforesaid Grama Panchayat to elect President and Vice-President of the said Grama 5 Panchayat. That the petitioner being the only woman member belonging to Backward Class -B category was elected as the President of the aforesaid Grama Panchayat in the meeting held on 18.02.2021. The petitioner got elected to the said post by merely filing the nomination as the said post was reserved and not by votes of the members. When things stood thus, on 17.08.2022 the Vice President of the Grama Panchayat has given a requisition in Form No.1 to the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner containing the signatures of 5 other members of the Panchayat seeking to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner issued notice dated 19.08.2022 at Annexure-F informing that a meeting for no confidence motion against the petitioner would be held on 08.09.2022. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said notice at Annexure-F, the 6 petitioner is before this court seeking the reliefs as stated above.
3. Sri. P.P.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that;
3.1. the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 -Assistant Commissioner is for extraneous consideration and under political pressure. The said notice is contrary to the tenets of Section 49 of the Act, 1993.
3.2. the impugned notice does not comply with the mandatory requirement contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, 1993 and Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1994) requiring 7 the same to be signed by half of the total number of members of the Panchayat.
3.3. the impugned notice is also opposed to the mandatory requirement of providing 15 clear days as required under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994.
3.4. the letter accompanying Form No.1 contains serious allegations made by the members of the Panchayat against the petitioner requiring enquiry. Motion of no confidence based on the allegation as earlier contemplated under Section 49(2) of the Act has been struck off from statute by an amendment.
3.5. that reservation provided in Section 44 of the Act, 1993 is the principal provision and the provision for no confidence under Section 49 of the Act, 1993 is only a subsidiary provision which should be yield to the principal provision. 8
3.6 since the petitioner is the only candidate available for the post of President which is reserved for Backward Class 'B' category, there will be absurdity in interpreting Section 49, in that even if no confidence motion is passed against the petitioner and removed from the post, in the ensuing election again the petitioner will contest leading to an avoidable anomaly.
3.7. that the term of the petitioner was for 30 months reserved as per the notification issued under Section 44 of the Act. As such, there cannot be any no confidence motion moved against the petitioner within the period of 30 months. More particularly, when the petitioner is the only available candidate for the said reserved category.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following judgments in support of his case; 9
1. 1959 Supp (1) SCR 623- N.T.Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar and others
2. ILR 1996 KAR. 3290- Bapu Dada Patil vs. State of Karnataka
3. Writ Petition No. 9957/2009 dated 9.4.2009 passed in T.M. Umashankar and others vs. State of Karnataka and others.
Thus, he submits that the impugned notice be set aside and the petition be allowed.
5. Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the petition is not maintainable in much as the relief sought therein is not contemplated in any of the provisions of the Act, 1993 and Rules 1994. That merely because petitioner is the only candidate available to the reserved post of President in the category of Backward Class 'B' the same would not render the provisions of Section 49 of the Act in effective. Section 49 of the Act, is a right given to the 10 members of the Panchayath and irrespective of the availability or otherwise of any candidate for the post of the President, the no confidence motion if requisitioned in the manner known to law has to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Learned AGA relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnappa vs. Deputy Commissioner- ILR 1996 Kar. 556.
Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 submits that the provisions of no confidence motion is to lend stability and dignity to the Panchayath Raj institutions and it is the democratic right of the members of the Panchayat. As long as the motion for no confidence is made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1993 and Rules, 1994 there is no reason not to move the same.
11
Learned counsel relies upon the following judgments;
1. (2014)7 SCC 663- Usha Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
2. (2010) 12 SCC 1- Bhanumati and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. The point that arise for consideration is;
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief of declaration that the provisions of no confidence motion provided under Section 49 of Act, 1993 is in applicable where the post of president and vice president of a Grama Panchayath falls under the reserve category and there is only one elected member belonging to the said reserved category among the members of the Grama Panchayath".?
9. The main contention urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that in the case where there is only one elected member belonging to 12 a reserved category, should the provisions of no confidence motion as provided under the Act 1993 and Rules 1994 to given effect to?
10. It is opposite to refer to provisions of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 and Rule 3 of Rules 1994 which are as under;
"49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- (1) Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:
[Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved [within the first thirty months] from the date of his election:
Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar 13 resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [within two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyksha, shall be moved except on specific allegation of misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of the panchayat or of misappropriating funds or other assets of the panchayat during the term of his membership or otherwise indulging in corruption or misconduct in the course of exercising his functions.] Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 of the Act;
"3. Motion of No-confidence.-
(1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by [not less than specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall e delivered in person [specified under sub- section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person] by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in From II: [The Assistant 14 Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer]:
Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting".
11. The issue involved in the present writ petition has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Krishnappa vs. Deputy commissioner reported in ILR 1996 KAR. 556, wherein at paragraph 5 of the said judgment this Court has held as under;
"5. Mr. Rudragowda, however, argued that even after removal of the petitioner he will continue to be the only candidate eligible to be elected to the post of Adhyaksha and that his removal would be an exercise in futility, since he alone would be entitled to be re-elected to the said post. I am not impressed by this submission. As to what will happen if the post held by the petitioner is vacated by him in consequence of a no- confidence motion passed against him is something with which I am not concerned at this stage. The petitioner may or may not be 15 re-elected to the said office. But the very fact that he may be the only one who can be re-elected is no reason to hold that he is immune to removal, even upon losing the confidence of 2/3rd of the membership of the Panchayat. In other words the continuance of an Adhyaksha or an Upa- Adhyaksha, regardless whether he belongs to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, is subject to the provisions of Section 49 of the Act meaning thereby that any such office bearer can be removed from his office in consequence of the passing of a non- confidence motion against him in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Any other view can in my opinion be taken only by doing violence to not only the provisions of Section 49 and the Rules framed therefore, but even to the very concept of Panchayats being democratic institutions. It is in fact inconceivable that in a democratic institution like the Panchayat any one holding an elected office could claim immunity from removal, even when he ceased to enjoy the confidence of the 2/3rd of the elected membership of the House simply because he belongs to any reserved category or that the position is reserved for a person belonging to any such category. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner".
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhanumati and others (supra) upholding the Constitutional validity of UP Panchayath Laws (Amendment ordinance 2017 which later became UP 16 Panchayath Law (Amendment Act) 2007 (UP Act 44, 2007) at paragraph 38 to 40, 49 and 57 has held as under;
"38. Under the Constitutional scheme introduced by the 73rd Amendment, Government State is no longer a service provider but is a felicitator for the people to initiate development on the basis of equity and social justice and for the success of the system people have to be sensitized about their role and responsibility in the system.
39. Thus, the composition of the Panchayat, its function, its election and various other aspects of its administration are now provided in great detail under the Constitution with provisions enabling the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the Constitutional mandate. Thus formation of Panchayat and its functioning is now a vital part of the Constitutional scheme under Part IX of the Constitution. Obviously, such a system can only thrive on the confidence of the people, on those who comprise the system.
40. In the background of these provisions, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the provision of no-confidence, being not in Part IX of the Constitution is contrary to the Constitutional scheme of things and would run contrary to the avowed purpose of Constitutional amendment which is meant to lend stability and dignity to Panchayati Institutions. It was further argued that reducing the period from `two years' to `one year' before a no-confidence motion can be brought further unsettles the running of the Panchayat. It was further urged that under the impugned amendment that such a no-confidence motion 17 can be carried on the basis of a simple majority instead of two thirds majority dilutes the concept of stability.
49. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, the arguments by appellants cannot be accepted in view of a very well known Constitutional Doctrine, namely, the Constitutional doctrine of silence. Michael Folley in his treaties on `The Silence of Constitutions' (Routledge, London and New York) has argued that in a constitution "abeyances are valuable, therefore, not in spite of their obscurity but because of it. They are significant for the attitudes and approaches to the Constitution that they evoke, rather than the content and substance of their strictures.
57. It has already been pointed out that the object and the reasons of Part IX are to lend status and dignity to Panchayati Raj Institutions and to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them. The learned counsel for the appellant unfortunately, in his argument, missed the distinction between an individual and an institution. If a no-confidence motion is passed against the chairperson of a Panchayat, he/she ceases to be a Chairperson, but continues to be a member of the Panchayat and the Panchayat continues with a newly elected Chairperson. Therefore, there is no institutional set back or impediment to the continuity or stability of the Panchayati Raj Institution".
13. Further in the case of Usha Bharti (supra) the Apex Court dealing with the removal of the Chairperson at Panchayath, of a candidate belonging 18 to reserved category, by a no confidence motion at paragraph 26, 35 and 42 has held as under;
"26. We also do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste Lady cannot be removed through a vote of No Confidence. We do not find any merit that the provisions contained in Section 28 would frustrate the provisions for reservation for Scheduled Caste Ladies. Even if an Adhyaksha belonging to one of the reserved categories, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes is removed on the basis of the vote of No Confidence, she can only be replaced by a candidate belonging to one of the reserved categories. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Shanti Bhushan seems to be focused only on the petitioner, in particular, and not on the candidates elected from the reserved categories, in general. The submission is wholly devoid of any merit and is hereby rejected.
35. The submissions of Mr. Bhushan on depriving a candidate belonging to the reserved category of a position to which he or she has been elected on the basis of reservation are wholly fallacious. The seat for the office of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat was reserved for women candidates, i.e., all women candidates. It was not specifically reserved for Ladies belonging to the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes. The petitioner contested 19 as a Lady Candidate and not as a candidate belonging to any reserved category and was elected on a seat reserved for Ladies generally.
42. 37. In our opinion, the amendment as well as the main provision in Section 28 is in absolute accord with the vision explicitly enunciated in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. In fact, the spirit which led to ultimately encoding the goals of "WE THE PEOPLE" in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, permeates all other provisions of the Constitution of India. The fundamental aim of the Constitution of India is to give power to the People. Guiding spirit of the Constitution is "WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA". In India, the People are supreme, through the Constitution of India, and not the elected Representatives. Therefore, in our opinion, the provision for right to recall through the Vote of No Confidence is in no manner repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India".
14. Thus, the aforesaid judgments of this Court and judgments of the Apex Court leaves no doubt that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act,1993 providing for removal of the Adhyaksha by no confidence motion have to be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there is only one candidate in the said reserved 20 category and that even after such removal the said candidate would have to re-elected.
15. No confidence motion is a constitutional/ statutory right vested with the members of the Panchayath for the effective, stable and transparent governance of the Panchayat Bodies.
16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner insists that the law does not act in vacuum, nor does the law act in vain and that any interpretation leading to futile exercise must by avoided. In support of the said contention, learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N.T.Veluswami Thevar (supra) wherein the Apex Court dealing with a scope of an enquiry in an election petition under Section 100 (1)(c) of the Representation Of People Act, 1951 on the ground of 21 that a nomination paper had been improperly rejected at paragraph 12 has held as under;
"12. There is another difficulty in the way of accepting this argument of the respondent. A candidate may be subject to more than one disqualification, and his nomination paper may be questioned on all those grounds. Supposing that the returning officer upholds one objection and rejects the nomination paper on the basis of that objection without going into other objections, notwithstanding that under Section 36(2) he has to decide all the objections, is it open to the respondents in the election petition to adduce evidence on those objections ? According to the respondent, it is not, so that if the decision of the returning officer on the objection on which he rejected the nomination paper is held to be bad, the Tribunal has no option but to set aside the election under Section 100(1)(c), even though the candidate was, in fact, disqualified and his nomination paper was rightly rejected. Mr. Sinha for the respondent concedes that the result would be anomalous, but he says that the Law of Election is full of anomalies, and this is one of them, and that is no reason for not interpreting the law on its own-terms. It is no doubt true that if on its true construction, a statute leads to anomalous results, the Courts have no option but to give effect to it and leave it to the legislature to amend and alter the law. But when on a construction of a statute, two views are possible, one which results in an anomaly and the other not, it is our duty to adopt the latter and not the former, seeking consolation in the thought that the law bristles with anomalies. Anomalies will 22 disappear, and the law will be found to be simple and logical, if it is understood that when a question is raised in an election petition as to the propriety of the rejection of a nomination paper, the point to be decided is about the propriety of the nomination and not the decision of the returning officer on the materials placed before him, and that decision must depend on whether the candidate is duly qualified and is not subject to any disqualifications as provided in Section 36(2)".
17. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is dealing with construction/interpretation of the provision in the statute. In the instant case, the issue is not with regard to construction or interpretation of provision of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 or the Rules 1994. It is the case of substituting a provision which is not existing in the Statute.
18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner buttressing his arguments on the effect of provisions of Sections 44 and 49 of the Act, 1993 in the light of the factual background of the present case relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Babu 23 Dada Patil, wherein at paragraphs 6 and 7 this Court is has observed as under;
"6. We pointedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to whether there is any provision in the statute barring a person against whom no -confidence is expressed by a resolution to contest for the same office at a later stage, in the normal circumstance when there is no reservation. The learned counsel is not in a position to point out any such prohibition. If in the normal circumstance there is no bar against whom no confidence is expressed to contest to that post later and if he is very confident of winning the election thereto, why such a person cannot contest the election is beyond our understanding and such a stand hardly stands to logic. Therefore, we think we should allow the process commenced by the respondent to reach its logical end.
7........ History cannot be forgotten in that regard. Reservations made to protect such persons must further provide that the no confidence motion could be moved only in certain circumstances such as disability arising on account of serious misconduct of the incumbent in office. Otherwise as provisions stand, the enactment leads to piquant situations such as in the present case, as if a person in whom no confidence is expressed and is elected again to such office and such person is not in a position to command majority in the Panchayath, there will be dead-lock and stalemate in the Panchayath. The legislature will have to bestow its attention to this aspect and suitably provide for such contingencies".24
19. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the case of T.M.Umashankar (supra) wherein referring to the aforesaid observation of this Court in the Bapu Dada's case (supra) at paragraph 5 has further observed as under;
"5. It is a matter of fact that although 13 years have gone by since the aforesaid observation of the Division Bench of this Court, nothing precious is done by the State. It is hoped that the state would open its eyes and bestow its attention in that regard, at least now."
20. Thus, even as seen from the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid cases, that is, in Bapu Dada (supra) and T.M. Umashankar (supra) the courts can only interpret the provisions which are available and lay law accordingly. That in the case of COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 5 SCC 511 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "it is equally a settled law that if there is a law, the judges can enforce it, but judges cannot create a law by 25 judicial verdict and seek to enforce it". Thus, in view of the requirement of a provision to move a no confidence motion for the sake of maintaining stability and transparency in the administration of Panchayat Raj system and in view of the constitutionality of the provisions of no confidence motion introduced by the State legislatures into the statute having been upheld by the Apex Court as noted above, the said provisions needs to be given full effect whether or not candidate against whom such action is taken would be eligible to re-contest the election and indeed would be re- elected. In these legal and factual background, the contention of the petitioner that since her post is reserved for a period of 30 months by a Notification issued in terms of Section 44 of the Act, 1993 and that no motion for no confidence be moved cannot be countenanced as the same run contrary to the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, 1993. 26
21. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the declaration as sought for in this writ petition.
22. As regards the relief for quashing the notice at Annexure-F nothing has been made out in the petition with regard to non- compliance of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 and Rules, 1994 of the Act by the petitioner requiring any interference in this regard. Admittedly, the Aithoor Gram Panchayat consists of 11 elected members including the petitioner as its President. Out of the said 11 members 5 have given their requisition under Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993 in prescribed Form No.1 as per Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1994 seeking to convene a meeting to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant thereof, the Assistant 27 Commissioner- respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 19.08.2022 fixing the meeting on 08.09.2022 at 11.30 a.m. The requisition at Annexure-E and the notice at Annexure-F are in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above. In that view of the matter, no infirmity or illegality can be found with the Annexures-E and F.
23. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis following;
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) Respondent No.2 -Assistant
Commissioner is at liberty to
convene the meeting for no
confidence motion strictly in
accordance with the provisions of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 and the 28 Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-
Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
Sd/-
JUDGE RU