Nasreen Begum And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 8616 Kant

                             1             W.P.No.201326/2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      WRIT PETITION No.201326/2022 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. NASREEN BEGUM
       W/O KALIMSAB SARKARI,
       AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS,
       OCC: PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHYATH,
       IVANI, R/O TONASANAHLLI (T),
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST: KALABURAGI.

2.     SMT. AMBIKA W/O SHIVAYOGI KOLLUR,
       AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH,
       IVANI, R/O TONASANAHLLI (T),
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST: KALABURAGI.

3.     SMT. SUMITRABAI W/O VIJAYAKUMAR,
       AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYAT,
       IVANI, R/O MALAKUD,
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI.

4.     SRI. GURUNATH S/O NAGAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH,
       IVANI, R/O BELAGUMPA,
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI.

5.     SRI. NAGARAJ S/O ANNARAO,
       AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH,
                              2             W.P.No.201326/2022


       IVANI, R/O BELAGUMPA,
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI.
                                              ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH HANMANTHARAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
       PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
       M.S. BUILDING, BENGALOORU-560001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       KALABURAGI-585101.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       SEDAM-585222.

4.     THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
       TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SEDAM-585222.

5.     GRAM PANCHAYAT, IVANI,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.

6.     SMT. RAJAMMA W/O DEVINDRAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT,
       GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI, R/O IVANI,
       TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

7.     SMT. ASHINA BEGUM W/O MAHIBOOB PATEL,
       AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI,
       R/O IVANI, TQ. CHITTAPUR &
       DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

8.     SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O SHANKRAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
       OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI,
       R/O IVANI, TQ. CHITTAPUR &
       DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.
                             3           W.P.No.201326/2022


9.    SRI. VIJAYKUMAR S/O SANGAVI,
      AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH,
      IVANI, R/O IVANI,
      TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

10.   SMT. GEETA W/O ANAND BENUR,
      AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH,
      IVANI, R/O IVANI,
      TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

11.   SMT. MALANBI W/O BABUMIYA,
      AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH,
      IVANI R/O BELAGUMPI,
      TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

12.   SRI. SOMASHEKHAR S/O SHIVAPPA HOSAMANI,
      AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI,
      R/O MALAKUD, TQ. CHITTAPUR &
      DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

13.   SRI. REVANASIDDAPPA S/O SHARANAPPA ALDI,
      AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI,
      R/O MALAKUD, TQ. CHITTAPUR &
      DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

14.   SMT. KALAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA TALAKERI,
      AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH, IVANI,
      R/O TONASANAHALLI (T),
      TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.

15.   SRI. VEERUPAKSHAPPA
      S/O SIDDANNA HADAGAL,
      AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
      OCC: MEMBER GRAM PANCHYATH,
      IVANI, R/O TONASANAHALLI (T)
      TQ. CHITTAPUR & DIST. KALABURAGI-585317.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
                                  4              W.P.No.201326/2022


(BY SMT. MAYA.T.R, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 23.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, AND THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT GRAM PANCHAYAT, IVANI ON 02.06.2022 THE COPY
OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C & D
RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The petitioners herein have preferred the instant writ

petition challenging the impugned notice dated 23.05.2022

issued by respondent No.3 and the resolution passed by the

5th respondent/Grama Panchayat on 02.06.2022 wherein 'No-

Confidence Motion' has been passed against the first

petitioner/Adhyaksha of the 5th respondent/Grama

Panchayat, as per Annexures-C and D respectively.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners as well as the learned HCGP appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the

purpose of disposal of the petition are:

Petitioner No.1 was elected as the 'Adhyaksha' of the

fifth respondent/Grama Panchayat in the election that was

held on 06.02.2021. Respondents Nos.6 to 15, who are the

elected members of the fifth respondent/Grama Panchayat

had moved a representation/requisition before the Assistant

Commissioner for the purpose of holding a meeting for

moving a 'No-Confidence Motion' as against the first

petitioner/Adhyaksha. On the basis of such

representation/requisition dated 13.05.2022, the third

respondent/Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice as

provided under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj

(Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and

Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity) in Form No.2 on

23.05.2022 fixing the date of meeting for the purpose of

holding 'No Confidence Motion' on 02.06.2022. The meeting

was held on 02.06.2022 and a resolution was passed by a

2/3rd majority of the elected members to the effect that they

have no confidence on the first petitioner/Adhyaksha of the

5th respondent/Gram Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners are before this court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that there is no clear notice of 15 days to the

members of the Grama Panchayat and therefore, the

meeting that was held on 02.06.2022 was bad in law. He

submits that since the mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2)

of the Rules has not been complied with, the resolution

passed on 02.06.2022 to the effect that the 2/3rd of the

elected members had no confidence in the first petitioner

cannot be sustained. He has placed reliance on the

judgments of this court in the case of Baburao -vs- The

State of Karnataka and others in Writ Appeal

Nos.200727-728/2018 disposed of on 23.01.2019 and in

Writ Appeal Nos.5159-5160/1990 in the case of

M.Muniyappa and Another -vs- The State of Karnataka

and others disposed of on 10.12.1998 and submits that

non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2)

would nullify the resolution vide Annexure-D and accordingly

prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent

Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioners have not approached

this court after receiving the notice at Annexure-C dated

23.05.2022 wherein the meeting for the purpose of 'No-

Confidence Motion' was fixed on 02.06.2022, but they have

awaited for the members to pass a resolution and it is only

thereafterwards they have approached this court in this writ

petition. She has relied upon the judgment of a Division

Bench of this court in the case of Munirathnamma -vs-

Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar and

Another1 and submits that in identical circumstances, where

the petitioners had approached this court challenging the

meeting notice as well as the resolution passed in the

meeting, this court has held that the writ petition cannot be

maintained and the Adhyaksha, who has lost the confidence

2007(1) Kar.L.J. 543 (DB)

of the majority of the members, cannot be reinstated, having

regard to the fact that he was removed from the office by

democratic process.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced

on both sides and also perused the material on record.

7. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner are in cases where the petitioner had

approached this court challenging the meeting notices issued

in Form No.2 under Rule 3(2) of the Rules prior to the

meeting of 'No-Confidence' being held pursuant to such

notices. It is under these circumstances, this court has held

that the mandatory requirement of Rule 3(2) of the Rules is

required to be complied with.

8. In the case of Baburao (supra) the Division Bench

of this Court after having held that the Single Judge had

erred in not interfering with the notice issued in Form No.2

as provided under Rule 3(2) of the Rules after quashing the

said notice has held that any subsequent event effected in

pursuance of such notice is non-est including the meeting

that was held on 06.08.2018. However, the same is not the

position in the present case and therefore, the said

judgments cannot be of any aid to the petitioners.

9. The judgment of this court relied upon by the

learned HCGP would be applicable to the facts of this case, as

the petitioners have not approached this court in time

challenging the meeting notice, but they have approached

this court after "No-Confidence Motion" has been passed

successfully against the first petitioner/Adhyaksha, who is

deemed to have vacated his office on such a resolution being

passed by the requisite number of members expressing want

of confidence in him.

10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Munirathnamma (supra) has held that the writ petition

challenging the validity of notice as well as for quashing of

"No-confidence" resolution passed with requisite majority, on

the ground that the notice actually served on the members

was short by one day of minimum prescribed would not be

maintainable on the ground that Adhyaksha, who has been

removed from the office by a democratic process cannot be

reinstated by this court in exercise of its power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, by quashing the resolution

passed against him by the requisite number of members as

provided under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj

Act on hyper-technical ground. In the said judgment, it has

also been held that any and every irregularity does not

warrant invoking writ jurisdiction, more so, where violation

alleged is not of fundamental or other valuable right, but of

provision which is essentially procedural in nature and

violation thereof has not resulted in prejudice to any party.

11. In view of the judgment of this court in the case of

Munirathnamma (supra), no relief can be granted to the

petitioners herein. Further this court in the case of Abdul

Razak -vs- Assistant Commissioner, Davangere2 has

held that the writ petition filed by the Adhyaksha challenging

the meeting notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the Rules in

2005(1) Kar.L.J. 230

Form No.2 cannot be maintained wherein he has raised

technical grounds regarding procedural aspects.

Under the circumstances, I decline to entertain this writ

petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KNM/-

CT-SMP