Karnataka High Court
Yathish C N vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.10875 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
YATHISH C.N.
S/O NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O CHELUR- 572 117,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION,
TUMAKURU - 572 117
3. CHELUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH
CHELUR VILLAGE AND POST,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
2
4. SHIVARAJU S.B.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O BORANNA C.B.,
R/O BANGENAHALLI,
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117.
5. JAYAMMA M.S.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O RAGHU C.T.,
R/O CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117.
6. VIJAYKUMAR C.N.
VIJAYAKUMAR C.M,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O MYLLARIAH
R/O CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
7. SIDDARAJU C.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
R/O PUTTENAHALLI DIBBA
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
8. PADMA C.C.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O KUMAR
R/O CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
9. MALA S.R.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
W/O ANAND C.N.
3
R/O CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
10 . VIJAYALAKSHMI M
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O NARASIHMA
R/O OPP. APMC YARD
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
11 . M.K. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O KALEGOWDA
R/O SRI VENKATESHWARA BEKARY,
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
12 . UMADEVI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O KALEGOWDA
R/O SRI VENKATESHWARA BEKARY
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
13 . SHIVAKUMARA C.H.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE HUCHAIAH
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
14 . YASHODHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O MANJUNATH
R/O ASHWATHAKATTE BEEDI
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
4
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
15 . DHANANJAYA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA
R/O YENNEKATTE
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
16 . SUJATHA RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O RAVIKUMAR
R/O NEAR HEMAVATHI CHANAL
CHELUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
17 . BASAVARAJ H.U.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O UGRAIAH
R/O A.K. COLONY, KODIYALA
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
18 . K.S. SUJATHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O K.G. MAHESH
R/O KODIYALA, CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 117
19 . K.G. RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE GARUDAIAH
KODIYALA, CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
20 . NALINI M.K.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
5
W/O MARUTHI M.R.
R/O MUGANAHUNASE
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
21 . S.D. DAYANAND
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O DODDAKEMPAIAH
R/O SULLAYYANAPALYA
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
22 . RANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O VAJRAIAH
R/O MUGANAHUNASE
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
23 . RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
R/O KACHENAHALLI
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 117
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.06.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 23 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 18.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT IN NO.ELN:CR:13/2021-22 CONVENING THE
MEETING OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT GRAMAPANCHAYATH AT
11.00 AM ON 07.06.2022 IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE NO
CONFIDENCE MOTION MOVED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY
6
TWENTY MEMBERS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH
AS ITS PRESIDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being the President of the respondent No.3 has filed this writ petition challenging the no- confidence motion against him moved by the members of the respondent No.3 as well as the notice dated 18.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure 'H' to the petition convening the meeting on 07.06.2022 to consider the motion of no-confidence.
2. The petitioner contended that the notice of a no-confidence was submitted to the respondent No.2 by the members of respondent No.3 on 13.05.2022 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent No.2 on 13.05.2022. However, when the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice dated 18.05.2022 convening a meeting on 07.06.2022, he referred to a notice dated 16.05.2022 submitted by the members of respondent 7 No.3. It was therefore contended that the members of respondent No.3 had submitted two notices of no- confidence viz., one dated 13.05.2022 and the other dated 16.05.2022. The petitioner claimed that his attempt to get a copy of the notice dated 16.05.2022 was turned down by the respondent No.2.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the notice of no-confidence dated 16.05.2022 was not available, the respondent No.2 could not have convened a meeting on 07.06.2022 as it was in flagrant violation of Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was entitled to know the contents of the notice of no-confidence dated 16.05.022 and not serving a copy of the same, deprived the petitioner of a valuable right. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the impugned notice be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the intention of no-confidence 8 dated 13.05.2022 was submitted by the members of respondent No.3 on 16.05.2022, but inadvertently the respondent No.2 had marked the date of receipt as 13.05.2022. She submits that this was a human error and the same is evident from the records. The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the file relating to the notice of no-confidence against the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The records placed before me by the learned Additional Government Advocate point out that the representation was filed by the members of the respondent No.3 expressing no-confidence against the petitioner before respondent No.2 on 16.05.2022. However, the respondent No.2 had marked the date of receipt of the notice as 13.05.2022 instead of 16.05.2022. It is travesty that the respondent No.2 while dealing with a sensitive matter such as no-confidence motion has been callous in 9 the matter of receipt of the notice of no-confidence motion. However, having regard to the fact that this was an inadvertent error on the part of the respondent No.2 and that the petitioner was provided with 15 days notice as required under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, there is no procedural irregularity necessitating interference by this Court.
Hence, this Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma