Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 241 (KAR)

Sathyavathi J. M. v. Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-division

2010-02-24

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2010
ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.— The petitioner, the sitting Adhyaksha of the 2nd respondent-Gulur Grama Panchayat, aggrieved by the notice dated 6-2-2010 in Form 2 of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, fixing 25-2-2010 as the date for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner, has preferred this writ petition. In the circumstances, the observation of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Razak Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division and Others, (2005) 1 KarLJ 230 , is apposite: 4. Rule 3 is a provision made for effectuating the substantive right given to members under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Section 49 is a provision whereunder every 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha' of a Grama Panchayat shall be forthwith deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. The right given under Section 49 of the Act is to the members who have such a right to have the 'Adhyaksha' removed if not less than two-thirds of the members have expressed their lack of confidence in the 'Adhyaksha'. The procedure contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules is for effectuating that right of the members. The examination of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules cannot be independent of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. Section 49 of the Act is not one giving any right in favour of a person holding the office of the 'Adhyaksha', but for conferring rights in favour of the members of the Panchayat to remove the 'Adhyaksha'. 2. In the light of the above observation, the petitioner, a sitting President of the Panchayat, has no locus standi to maintain this petition on the premise of violation or non-compliance of the requirement of the rules. Petition is accordingly, rejected.