Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 422 (KAR)

Sathyawwa v. State of Karnataka

2001-06-07

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2001
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Navalagi Gram Panchayat in Jamkhandi Taluk. He is seeking to quash the requisition of "no confidence motion" moved against him vide Annexure-B and the meeting of no confidence motion at Annexure-D dated 23.5.2001. Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged two grounds. The first ground is that the notice of 'no confidence motion' is not in conformity with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. He placed reliance on the application filed as per Annexure-A seeking certain documents and submits that in response to the same Annexure-B was issued to the Petitioner. According to him, full particulars sought for were not furnished. Therefore, the Counsel submits that the notice of no confidence motion is not in conformity with the aforesaid rule. The second ground is that Rule 3 of the Rules is mandatory for the reason that moving of no confidence motion against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a grama panchayath entails serious civil consequence but there is non-compliance of the same and therefore the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for grant of the reliefs as prayed in this petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the particulars sought for by the Petitioner have been furnished as per Annexures-B and C and that the notice of no confidence motion was in order as the same had been submitted by one third members of the grama panchayath. 3. Caveat has been filed on behalf of a party who is not arrayed in this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the caveator supports the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have perused the notice of 'no confidence motion' at Annexure-B. It bears the signature of 11 persons. The contents of the notice reads that "we hereby given notice". This should be understood that the signatories have personally presented the same in the absence of any remark or endorsement contrary to the same. Therefore, the contentions advanced by Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil for the Petitioners cannot be accepted and the same deserve rejection. 5. It is also to be noted that the notice of "no confidence meeting" is dated 23.5.2001. The proposed meeting is on 8.6.2001, i.e., tomorrow itself. Writ Petition was filed on 6.6.2001. Therefore, the contentions advanced by Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil for the Petitioners cannot be accepted and the same deserve rejection. 5. It is also to be noted that the notice of "no confidence meeting" is dated 23.5.2001. The proposed meeting is on 8.6.2001, i.e., tomorrow itself. Writ Petition was filed on 6.6.2001. Therefore, at this juncture this Court shall not cause interference and make the public money wasted as every arrangements must have been made for the conduct of the meeting. In a matter like this the Court refrains itself from entertaining the writ petition arising out of 'no confidence motion'. 6. Petition is accordingly dismissed.