Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 158 (KAR)

PUTALABAI v. GULBARGA TALUK PANCHAYAT, GULBARGA

2009-02-21

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2009
ORDER Two out of 26 members of the Taluk Panchayat, Gulbarga and the President of the Taluk Panchayat are before Court, calling in question the legality and validity of the notice of the special meeting dated 16-2-2009 Annexure-A issued by Chief Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, convening the meeting on 24-2-2009 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the motion of no confidence against the third petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions: (a) That the third petitioner, sitting President against want of confidence was expressed by a written representation signed by 17 members, passed an order that the motion of no confidence was not signed by 1/3rd of the total number of members. According to the learned Counsel, first and second petitioners though signed the no confidence motion later on withdrew and therefore 15 signatories to the no confidence motion do not constitute 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat as required by sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. (b) That the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat for the purpose of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of the Act includes such of those nominated members as set out in Section 120 of the Act, which is 42 of which 1/3rd is 14. (c) That four signatory members to the no confidence motion had stated that their signatories were obtained on a white sheet of paper later utilised to make believe a motion of no confidence against the petitioner and therefore the required numbers were unavailable to move a no confidence motion against the petitioner. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat for the purpose of sub-section (2)(a)' of Section 141 of the Act must be read in conjunction with sub-section (2) of Section 120, to exclude such of those members who have no right to vote and members who are specifically excluded from casting a vote in the elections to the President or Vice-President or the motion of no confidence. Even otherwise in the facts of this case, learned Counsel contends that 17 out of the 42 members constituting the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat is more than 1/3rd of the members who moved the no confidence motion and assuming petitioners 1 and 2, though signatories, to the no confidence motion, have retracted, the remaining 15 members constitute one more than the required 1/3rd of the total number of members to move a no confidence motion. In addition, learned Counsel contends that the failure on the part of the third petitioner to convene a special meeting to consider the no confidence motion on the premise that the requisite numbers were not available, cannot preclude the Vice-President or the members from calling a special meeting and request the Executive Officer to issue notice of the said meeting to the members. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the notice impugned, it is manifest that the Taluk Panchayat consists of 26 elected members, while 18 members are nominated from out of the House of People, the State Legislative Assembly, whose constitution lie within the taluk, members of the Council of States and the Legislative Council registered as electors of the taluk and 1/5th of the Adhyakshas of the Gram Panchayats in the taluk as provided for in sub-section (1) of Section 120, together constituting 42 members. 5. Indisputably the 25 out of the 26 elected members joined together to elect the third petitioner as the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat. The 18 nominated members of the Taluk Panchayat though entitled to take part in proceedings and vote at meetings of the Taluk Panchayat are by operation of sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act, specifically excluded to do so at special meetings convened for the election of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas under sub-section (1) of Section 138 or for considering no confidence motion under sub-section (3) of Section 140. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature is to exclude the non-elected members to have a say in the matter of election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha or their removal by a no confidence motion. If that is so, it is too far fetched for the petitioners to contend that a no confidence motion against an Adhyaksha must be moved by 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat. If that is so, it is too far fetched for the petitioners to contend that a no confidence motion against an Adhyaksha must be moved by 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat. It must be noticed that the Legislature has not framed rules in respect of no confidence motion of Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of the Taluk Panchayat. Nevertheless, having regard to the 'intention of the Legislature by enacting Section 120(2) imposing fetters on the power of the non-elected members of the Taluk Panchayat to cast a vote in the matter of consideration of a no confidence motion, it cannot but be said that 1/3rd of the total number of members must be understood to mean 1/3rd of the total number of elected members of the Taluk Panchayat. 6. Be that as it way, in the instant case, the total number of elected members of the Taluk Panchayat are 26, while the non-elected members are 18 totaling to 42. 1/3rd of 42 members if taken into consideration, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, constitutes 14 members of the Taluk Panchayat. Assuming that petitioners 1 and 2 the elected members admittedly having affixed their signature to the no confidence motion have retracted, nevertheless, 15 other elected members were sufficient to move the no confidence motion. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that two other members who signed the no confidence motion have since retracted as evident from the letters Annexures-C and D. This submission cannot be acceded to, since those two members are not before Court. Mere filing of copies of letters allegedly of the two members retracting from their earlier expression of loss of confidence in the Adhyaksha is unacceptable. Even otherwise, in the special meeting convened to consider the motion of no confidence, it is open for those two members to have their say. 7. There is considerable force in the submission of Sri S.S. Kumman, learned Government Pleader that the third respondent-Adhyaksha having failed to convene the meeting, a mandate in law under sub-section (2)(a) of Section 141 of the Act, it was at the instant of the Upadhyaksha that the Chief Executive Officer issued the notice impugned in compliance with the rule of law. 8. 8. Looking at it from an angle, the notice convening the meeting on 24-2-2009 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the no confidence motion against the third petitioner cannot but be said to be legal and not calling for interference. Writ petition is without merit and is accordingly rejected.