IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA

1

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No. 85258/2012 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

NARAYAN S/O POLAYYA AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT GABBUR AND AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE GABBUR TQ: DEVADURGA DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101 … PETITIONER

(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE- 560 001
• 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAICHUR DISTRICT RAICHUR – 584 101
• 3 THE SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT GABBUR VILLAGE GABBUR, TQ. DEVADURGA DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, GOVT.ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FILE NO. REV/ELECTION/11/2012-13 DATED 18.08.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-F CALLING FOR MEETING TO DISCUSS NO – CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

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

ORDER

Adhyaksha of Gabbur village is knocking at the doors of this Court contending that notice of Noconfidence motion issued is in contravention of Rule 3(1) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity). This Court in catena of decisions have consistently and repeatedly held that any irregularity in issuance of notice would not give rise to challenge to such action in filing a writ petition.

2. Petitioner was elected as President, Gabbur Grama Panchayat in the election held on 21.08.2011, on account of previous president tendering his resignation. Grama Panchayat, Gabbur consists of 17 members and 11 members have issued notice of Noconfidence against the petitioner by submitting said noconfidence letter to second respondent – Assistant Commissioner in Form No.1 as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Pursuant to the said notice of no-confidence motion, respondent-Assistant Commissioner has called for a meeting to be held on 11.09.2012 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of Gram Panchayat, Gabbur. Being aggrieved by this, petitioner is before the Court.

3. It is the contention of Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that under Rule 3(1) of the Rules not only 1/3rd members of total number of members of Gram Panchayat should sign the proposed No-confidence motion but it has to be delivered in person by atleast two of the members who have signed

the said notice to Assistant Commissioner and in view of the fact that neither notice of motion nor meeting notice contains an entry/endorsement to the effect namely that it is presented by two members in person, said notice is to be held defective and as such, he seeks for quashing of impugned notice Annexure-F.

4. Per contra, Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate would defend the said notice and contend that there is no irregularity in the notice issued and even if such irregularity is to be found, same is not required to be inquired into at the instance of Adhyaksha/petitioner since right to remove Adhyaksha from Office is a right conferred on the members of Gram Panchayat under the Act and as such petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge said action.

5. In order to consider contentions raised by learned Advocates, it would be necessary to extract

relevant rule namely, Rule 3(1) which is pressed into service and same reads as under:

"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 onethird of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner."

6. A reading of the above provision would clearly indicate that it does not mandate that Assistant Commissioner who receives the notice of no-confidence motion has to make any endorsement either in the notice received by him or in the meeting notice summoned for considering said motion to the effect that it was submitted in person by two members who have signed the motion. In the event of any infraction of said Rule, Assistant Commissioner would be at liberty to refuse to receive the said notice on account of the same not having been submitted by requisite numbers

namely, two members who have signed no-confidence motion. Merely because it is not specifically mentioned in the meeting notice that it was submitted by two members of the Gram Panchayat, no inference can be drawn that it was not presented by two members. If such analogy is to be accepted then inference can also be drawn that all the 11 members have submitted in person the motion of No-confidence. Hence, said contention cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.

7. This Court, in the case of ABDUL RAZAK vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE & OTHERS (2005(1) Kar.L.J 230) has held as under:

"KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993, Section 49 – Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, Rule 3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Noconfidence motion proposed against Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat – notice of meeting specially convened for purpose of

moving of – writ petition filed by Adhyaksha challenging validity of notice on grounds of procedural irregularities and its improper service without copy of proposed no-confidence motion – Since right to remove Adhyaksha from office is right conferred on members, Adhyaksha not having such right, has no locus standi to challenge notice – What removes him from office is not notice but motion against him passed with requisite majority – Any irregularity in notice is not required to be enquired into at instance of Adhyaksha – His writ petition in this regard is not maintainable."

8. To the same effect is the dicta laid down by this Court reported in the case of MALAPRABHA SHRIKANT MADAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM reported in 2011(4) KCCR 2889.

"A.KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ (MOTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE AGAINST ADHYAKSHA & UPADHYAKSHA OF GRAMA PANCHAYAT)RULES, 1994 – Rule 3 – Requirement of personal presence of witnesses before the Assistant Commissioner to present the requisition – Whether can be inferred – Held, when once the Assistant Commissioner proceeds to issue notice in Form No.2, it goes to show that he is satisfied with the

requirement in respect of Rule 3(1) of the Rules."

9. I am in respectful agreement with the dicta laid down by this Court and I do not find any good ground to take any different view from the one taken in these two decisions referred to supra. Hence, writ petition is rejected as without merits.

Sd/- JUDGE

*sp