Smt Naveena vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7591 Kant

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.10114 OF 2022 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NAVEENA
W/O SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ADHYAKSHA OF UNDIGANALU
GRAM PANCHAYATH
R/O UNDIGANALU
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DIST.-573 103.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND
       RURAL DEVELOPMENT
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       M.S. BUILDING
       AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
       HASSAN-573 103.

3.     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
       UNDIGANALU VILLAGE,
       ARASIKERE TALUK
       HASSAN DIST.-573 122
       REP BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
                         2




4.   SRI. NINGARAJU
     MAJOR
     MEMBER
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST.573 122

5.   SRI. BHRINGESHA
     MAJOR
     MEMBER,
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST.573 122

6.   SRI. SHASHIDHARA
     MAJOR
     MEMBER,
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST.573 122

7.   SRI. SHANKARA MURTHY
     MAJOR
     MEMBER
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST.573 122

8.   SMT.SAVITHRAMMA
     MAJOR
     MEMBER,
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST-573 122

9.   SMT. JAYA BAI
     MAJOR
     MEMBER,
     UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
     UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
     HASSAN DIST.573 122
                           3




10.   SMT. SHIVAMMA
      MAJOR,
      MEMBER,
      UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
      UNDIGANALU, ARASIKERE TALUK
      HASSAN DIST.573 122

11.   SMT. BYRAMMA
      MAJOR
      MEMBER
      UNDIGANALU GRAM PANCHAYATH
      UNDIGANALU ARASIKERE TALUK
      HASSAN DIST.-573 122
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
NOS.4 TO 11 IS DISPENSED WITH)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTICE DATED 11.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-
DIVISION, HASSAN IN ¸ÀASÉå.ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ(2) 14/22-23 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

The petitioner being the Adhyaksha of Undiganalu

Gram Panchayat, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, has

challenged the notice dated 11.05.2022 issued by the

second respondent proposing to hold a meeting on

30.05.2022 to table the no-confidence motion moved

against her.

2. The petitioner was elected as the Adhyaksha of

the aforesaid Undiganalu Gram Panchayat (for short, 'the

Panchayat') on 02.02.2021. The respondent Nos.4 to 11

are the members of the Panchayat, who lodged a

complaint against the petitioner with the Panchayat

Development Officer on 17.02.2022 accusing her of

slackness in performing her duties. The petitioner alleged

that the members were obstructing her work and

therefore, she submitted a representation to the

respondent No.2 as well as Deputy Commissioner and

requested them to permit her to carry on the development

works. In connection with the representation submitted by

the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, the Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan, in terms of the

letter dated 31.03.2022, has forwarded copy of the

representation of the petitioner to the Executive Officer,

Taluk Panchyat, Arasikere, instructing him/her to take

necessary action and submit a report. Following this, the

respondent Nos.4 to 11 expressed their intention to move

a no-confidence motion against the petitioner and

submitted the prescribed Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the

Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules,

1994 on 04.05.2022 (henceforth referred to as the 'Rules

of 1994'). Following this, the respondent No.2 issued a

notice dated 11.05.2022 to the petitioner and fixed the

date of meeting for considering the no-confidence motion

on 30.05.2022. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this

petition challenging the notice of the proposed no-

confidence motion.

3. The petitioner claims that the notice of the

intention to move a no-confidence motion was in

continuation of the allegations made by the respondent

Nos.4 to 11 against her and therefore, the same was ill-

motivated. Even otherwise, she claimed that when there

were allegations against her, the respondent No.2 ought

not to have fixed the date for holding meeting to consider

the no-confidence motion. She also contended that she

had assumed charge of the office of Adhyaksha in the

month of February 2021 and therefore, the no-confidence

motion moved on 04.05.2022 was within fifteen months

from the date of her assumption of office as Adhyaksha

and as such, the same was not sustainable.

4. When the writ petition was listed for

preliminary hearing, this Court entertained a question as

to whether the ten days notice found in Proviso to Section

49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,

1993 (henceforth referred to as the 'Act of 1993') could be

issued even before the Adhyaksha completed fifteen

months from the date of his/her election.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the intention on the part of the respondent

Nos.4 to 11 to move the resolution expressing want of

confidence in the petitioner should be preceded by a ten

days notice and obviously it could not be issued before the

petitioner completed fifteen months from the date of her

election. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner

completed fifteen months on 02.05.2022 and therefore,

the notice of intention to move the resolution on

04.05.2022 by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 was premature.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate

submitted that the intention to move the resolution has to

be signed by one half of the total number of members of

the Panchayat and must be submitted to the respondent

No.2 who shall fix the date for considering the no-

confidence motion and such date shall not be less than

fifteen days from the date of the members submitting their

notice to express no-confidence. She further relied upon

the Judgments rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court

in the following cases:

      1.       Smt.    Parvathi    v.     The    Assistant
      Commissioner and Another [ILR 1997 KAR
      3230];





      2.         Abdul     Razak       v.   The      Assistant
      Commissioner,         Davanagere           Sub-Division,
      Davanagere and others [2004 SCC OnLine
      Kar 505];


      3.        Smt.     Padmavva           v.       Assistant
      Commissioner,        Jamkhandi        Division      [W.P.
      No.100324/2014             disposed           off     on
      10.01.2014];

7. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In the present case, the petitioner was elected

as the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat on 02.02.2021 and

therefore, fifteen months elapsed on 02.05.2022. The

notice expressing intention to move the no-confidence was

submitted by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 on 04.05.2022.

The respondent No.2 being the Competent Authority

issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.05.2022 proposing

to hold a meeting on 30.05.2022 to consider the

no-confidence motion. Therefore, the procedure adopted

by the respondent No.2 cannot be found fault with and the

same is in line with Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the

Rules of 1994. The contention of the petitioner that the no-

confidence cannot be moved within fifteen months from

the date of her assumption of office in view of the second

proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1993 is misplaced.

Therefore, her contention is liable to be rejected. The

petitioner could not point out whether the complaint

lodged by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 before the

Panchayat Development Officer could be construed as

expressing intention to move a no-confidence. Therefore,

on all counts, the case of the petitioner is liable to be

rejected.

9. In so far as the question that fell for

consideration of this Court, the first proviso to Section 49

of the Act of 1993 speaks about "notice of the intention to

move the resolution" while the second proviso deals with

"moving the resolution within the first fifteen months from

the date of election". The Rules of 1994 are structured in

such a manner that the notice of no-confidence is given

after the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha completes fifteen

months from the date of his or her election. Therefore, the

notice of the intention to move the resolution can be given

to the Competent Authority only after completion of fifteen

months from the date of his or her election as the

Adhyaksha.

10. In the present case, on 02.05.2022, the

petitioner has completed fifteen months from the date of

her election as Adhyaksha while the notice of intention to

move the no-confidence was submitted on 04.05.2022.

The respondent No.2 had issued the impugned notice to

the petitioner on 11.05.2022 and scheduled a meeting on

30.05.2022 to consider the no-confidence motion. There

is no irregularity in the procedure adopted in moving the

no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Hence, there

is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sma