Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 617 (KAR)

Ramappa v. The Asst Commissioner Koppal

2008-10-21

D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. Yet another writ petition by an incumbent Adhyaksha, of Tuggaladoni gram panchayat in kushtagi taluk of Koppal district, who has questioned the legality of the notice issued by the assistant commissioner fixing the date of the meeting to be on 30-10-2008 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) for the purpose of moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. 2. The grounds of challenge as submitted by Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned counsel, is that the requirements of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, the Rules) are not met; that the notice does not appear to have been presented by at least two members personally to the assistant commissioner as required by Rule 3(1) of the Rules; that even a cursory examination of Annexure-D, a communication addressed by the secretary of the gram panchayat to the assistant commissioner, indicates that the requirement given in form No 1 is routed through the secretary and not personally given to the assistant commissioner, that the notice of motion and requisition in form No 1 are attached to the communication at Annexure-D and therefore obviously not presented in person and warrants interference. 3. Rule 3 of the Rules 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 one-third 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. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall therefore convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha- (a) By delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or (b) If such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) By registered posts; or (d) If none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Grama panchayat. (4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat; The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at such meeting. Explanation: For determination of two third of total number of members under this sub-rule any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the Purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned. (6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule(1) shall lapse. (7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistants Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith ceases to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cession, if he is not present at the meeting. (10) After the cessation is notified under sub-rule (9) the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be shall, immediately hand over all documents, moneys or other properties of the Grama Panchayat in his custody to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. (11) The election to the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be held until the notification under sub-rule (9) removing the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, is published. While the mere fact that a requisition given by 11 members of the panchayat, out of total 16 members, being routed through the secretary, does not necessarily mean that the requirement of Rule 3(1) of the Rules is violated, for the simple reason that the Rule (1) stipulates that at least two members signing the requisition should personally present to the assistant commissioner at the time of the requisition being given to the assistant commissioner and even with the secretary forwarding the requisition and other things to the assistant commissioner, it does not lead to an inference that the members were not present at the time of presenting the requisition to the assistant commissioner, I am not very impressed to interfere on such technical infirmity assuming that it is suffering from want of compliance with the requirements in terms of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. 4. I say so for the reason that the Rule is one which is framed to aid and effectuate the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, the Act), which is one for enabling the members to move a motion of no confidence against an Adhyaksha in whom they do not have confidence any more. I say so for the reason that the Rule is one which is framed to aid and effectuate the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, the Act), which is one for enabling the members to move a motion of no confidence against an Adhyaksha in whom they do not have confidence any more. In a matter of this nature, the examination cannot be from the angle of the petitioner, who is the Adhyaksha,a s though the Adhyaksha has a right in the matter. If such submission on technicalities is to be accepted, while it can defeat the very purpose and object of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act, the infraction of compliances in respect of Rule 3(1) can never affect persons like the petitioner, as ultimately the petitioner’s position as Adhyaksha will be tested only in the meeting and continuance or otherwise will depend upon the voting that takes place at the meeting and not by mere issue of a notice as is done in this case by the assistant commissioner and which is sought to be quashed. 5. None of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is formidable enough to warrant interference to the extent of quashing the notice fixing a metting on 30-10-2008. Assuming that there are some technical infirmities regarding noncompliance with the requirement of Rule 3, they are not meritorious enough to interfere with in a matter of this nature particularly in a democratic system, where persons in elected offices should retain their positions only by retaining the confidence of requisite number of persons to support them and not by resorting to technicalities. For this reason, this writ petition is not entertained further and dismissed at the threshold.