Sri Panchakshari vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8855 Kant

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

        WRIT PETITION No.11309/2022 (LB-RES)


BETWEEN:

SRI. PANCHAKSHARI,
S/O SIDDAGANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
PRESIDENT,
SOMPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 125.

                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ,
       M.S. BUILDING,
       BENGALURU - 560 001,

2.     ASST. COMMISSIONER,
       DODDABALLAPURA SUB DVN.,
       DODDABALLAPURA,
       BENGALURU DIST - 561 203.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
                                      2


       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NO CONFIDENCE MOTION FILED ON 6.6.2022 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER      IN     THE    OFFICE      OF      THE   SOMPURA        GRAM
PANCHAYAT CONDUCTED BY THE R-2 UNDER ANNEXURE-E; AND
ETC.


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


                                 ORDER

The petitioner who was elected as a President of the

Somapura Grama Panchayath has filed the present petition

calling in question the validity of the resolution expressing

"No Confidence" passed on 06.06.2022 against the

petitioner.

2. The facts being that the requisition was made to

the Assistant Commissioner to move Motion of "No

Confidence" and the Assistant Commissioner as per

Annexure-C has issued a notice fixing the date as

06.06.2022 at 11.00 a.m. for consideration of Motion of "No

Confidence".

3. It is further submitted that the said Motion of

"No Confidence" has been passed against the petitioner as

is evident from the proceedings dated 06.06.2022 and the

validity of such "No Confidence" motion is called in question

in the present petition.

4. It is borne out from the records that at an earlier

point of time, WP.No.10740/2022 (LB-RES) was filed

challenging the validity of the notice dated 20.05.2022 at

Annexure-C and writ petition came to be disposed of as per

the order dated 01.06.2022.

5. The order of the learned Single Judge referred to

above was called in question in W.A.No.478/2022 by which

time, the motion of "No Confidence" came to be passed and

writ appeal was disposed of while observing as follows:

"4. It is hereby provided that in case the petitioner/appellant prefers to challenge the resolution passed against him yesterday i.e., 06.06.2022 in the No Confidence Motion, the observations made by the writ Court or this Court may not come in his way and the Competent

Forum may proceed to decide the same without being influenced in any manner in this regard."

Accordingly, the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jayakumar S Patil,

appearing for the petitioner has principally contended as

follows:

(i) the requisition that is made under Section 49(1) must be

with notice to the panchayat as well as the elected office

bearer against whom the motion of "No Confidence" is

moved;

ii) the requisition must be accompanied by copy of the

proposed resolution; and

(iii) the Assistant Commissioner should complete the

process within a period of thirty days.

7. He further contended that the procedure

prescribed under Section 49 must be read in conjunction

with the rules that are framed i.e., Karnataka Grama Swaraj

and Panchayat Raj Act, motion of No Confidence against the

Adyaksha and upadyaksha of Gramapanchayat Rules, 1994

(for short "Rules"). Specific reference is made to the

procedure under Rule 3 of the said Rules. Further reliance is

placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in

VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY vs. GUJARAT COOPERATIVE

MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED AND OTHERS,

(2015) 8 SCC 1 and in specific observations made in para

51 wherein, it is observed that the procedures prescribed in

any Act or Rules providing for removal of the elected

member by way of a motion of "No Confidence" needs to be

followed strictly.

8. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

would contend that the requisition made to the Assistant

Commissioner as contemplated under Section 49(1) must

be read in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Rules, which only

provides for notice in Form-1 to be submitted to the

Assistant Commissioner and there is no further requirement

that such notice must be made also to the members in

terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules.

9. It is further pointed out that the notice of the

Assistant Commissioner fixing the date of meeting to

consider the motion of "No Confidence" is 20.05.2022 and

the whole process has been completed within a period of

thirty days after following the procedure and accordingly,

there is no infirmity.

10. Heard both the sides.

11. Insofar as the contention relating to non-

accompanying of the proposed motion of "No Confidence"

along with the requisition made to the Assistant

Commissioner, it must be noticed that Section 49(1) needs

to be read in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Rules and what

is to be given to the Assistant Commissioner is only Form-1

and there is no further requirement in terms of the Rules.

Accordingly, the contention that the notice is to be

accompanied by the copy of the proposed resolution does

not arise. A plain reading of Form-7 does not admit of such

requirement. It is also to be noticed that the ten days

notice is for the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Rule

3(1) of the Rules and cannot be construed to be a notice

either to the elected office bearer who ought to be removed

or the other members.

12. It is to be noticed that subsequently, after the

requisition is made to the Assistant Commissioner, he does

give notice to the members as is contemplated under

Section 49 and it is only after such notice is given the

meeting is fixed and thus, notice at Annexure-C is such

notice that has been sent to the petitioner as well as other

members. The receipt of notice by the petitioner as

contended on 23rd May is not borne out from any record

placed by the petitioner. The notice to the members must

be a clear notice of 15 days. While it is the specific

assertion that notice was received by him on 23rd of May,

there is no material adduced to support such contention and

accordingly, the said contention is rejected. The notice is

issued on 20.05.2022 and meeting is held on 06.06.2022.

No material is placed to make out that notice is not as

prescribed under law. The Whole process is concluded

within a period of thirty days.

13. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for

interference with the impugned resolution and the petition

is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE DS