Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 32 (KAR)

T. Navalesh v. Asst. Commissioner

2012-01-11

B.S.PATIL

body2012
Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is calling in question the notice dated 9.12.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub Division, Ramanagara convening the meeting of the members of Vandaraguppe Grama Panchayat on 26.12.2011 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Vandaraguppe Grama Panchayat. The impugned notice has been issued on 7.7.2011 convening the meeting on 28.7.2011 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. As there was no quorum, in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat), Rules 1994, (for short, ‘the Rules’), the meeting stood dissolved and the notice given under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules stood lapsed. 3. Thereafter, requisite number of members of the Grama Panchayath again requisitioned the Assistant Commissioner on 2.12.2011 to convene a meeting for the purpose of expressing no-confidence against the petitioner. Based on the said requisition, the Assistant Commissioner has issued the impugned notice dated 9.12.2011 (Annexure-D) fixing the meeting of the Grama Panchayat on 26.12.2011 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that once a meeting having already taken place and the motion of no-confidence not being passed, by operation of the proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1933 (for short, ‘the Act’) a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhayksha shall not be moved within one year from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. 5. Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes me through Section 49 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules to contend that even when a meeting of the Grama Panchayat convened for the purpose of discussing the no-confidence motion stands dissolved on account of lack of quorum resulting in the lapse of notice given under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the bar contained under Section 49 of the Act to issue fresh notice or to move a fresh motion of no-confidence for a period of one year operates and therefore the impugned notice issued vide Annexure-D is illegal and unsustainable in law. 6. 6. Sri Rajagopal emphasizes the fact that the intention of the rule making authority in enacting sub-rules (4), (5) and (6) in Rule 3 of the Rules and of the State Legislature in enacting Section 49 of the Act, examined together makes it very clear that repeated motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat is discouraged and once an attempt to move the no-confidence motion fails for whatever reason, the embargo for moving a similar motion against the same Adhyaksha for a period of one year operates. 7. Learned counsel further takes me through Section 54 of the Act and contends that there is a bar for the Grama Panchayat to modify or cancel the resolution within six months after the passing of an earlier resolution, except by the consent of one-half of total number of members. His assertion is that the decision taken in the meeting convened on 28.7.2011 vide Annexure-B has to be considered as a resolution and this resolution cannot be modified or cancelled within a period of six months from the date of its passing as provided under Section 54 of the said Act. 8. Sri M. Keshava Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri G.M. Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 19 strongly refute these contentions and urge that the third proviso to Section 49 has no application to the present case, as the same will come into operation only if the no-confidence motion moved earlier was considered and negatived by the Grama Panchayat by passing a resolution. 9. Sri Anand has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of V.MANJUNATH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUBDIVISION AND ANOTHER, reported in 1997 (2) Kar.L.J.456 to contend that Section 54 has no application for the motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat inasmuch as there is no prohibition against a fresh motion of no-confidence being initiated. 10. 10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, the question that falls for my consideration is: “whether the bar contained in the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act is applicable to the instant case and therefore the impugned notice convening the meeting of the Grama Panchayat for the purpose of consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable?” Section 49 of the Act reads as follows: 49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhaksha of Grama Panchayat. - Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be 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 total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within one year from the date of his election. Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within one year from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. 11. This Court is concerned with the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act and that is why the same is highlighted. It is necessary to refer to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat), Rules 1994, which lays down the procedure for no-confidence motion. Sub-Rules (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Rule 3 of the said Rules are relevant and the same are extracted herein-below: “3. It is necessary to refer to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat), Rules 1994, which lays down the procedure for no-confidence motion. Sub-Rules (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of Rule 3 of the said Rules are relevant and the same are extracted herein-below: “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 thereafter 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: 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, a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) xxxxxxxxxx (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 or 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) xxxxxxx (8) xxxxxxx (9) xxxxxxx (10) xxxxxxx (11) xxxxxxxx 12. (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) xxxxxxx (8) xxxxxxx (9) xxxxxxx (10) xxxxxxx (11) xxxxxxxx 12. A reading of the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act makes it explicit that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhayaksha has been considered and negatived (underlining is mine) by a Grama Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved within one year from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. In the instant case, no resolution is passed considering and negativing the motion brought up expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksha. In fact, the meeting convened could not transact any business on account of lack of quorum. 13. Now coming to the relevant Rule viz., Rule 3(1) of the Rules, it is clear that before the Assistant Commissioner issues notice convening the meeting for the purpose of no-confidence motion, a written notice of intention to make the motion shall have to be given in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and the Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for consideration of the said motion. As is clear from sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the quorum for such meeting shall be two-thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat and it is the Assistant Commissioner, who shall preside over such meeting. Sub-rule (5) provides that a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not, for any reason, be adjourned and sub-rule (6) makes it clear that, if there was 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. 14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there was no quorum when the meeting was scheduled on 28.7.2011 and therefore the meeting stood dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) i.e. the written notice of intention to make the motion duly signed by the requisite number of members in Form No.1 stood lapsed. 14. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that there was no quorum when the meeting was scheduled on 28.7.2011 and therefore the meeting stood dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) i.e. the written notice of intention to make the motion duly signed by the requisite number of members in Form No.1 stood lapsed. This is what is recorded by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.7.2011 vide Annexure-B. This minutes recorded cannot be termed as a resolution. No resolution could have been passed in the said meeting as there was no quorum. When the meeting was dissolved on account of lack of quorum, it cannot be said that the motion moved expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksha was considered and negatived as provided under the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act. If that is so, bar for issuing another notice for consideration of no-confidence within one year from the said will not arise. 15. It is the cardinal principle of interpretation of statues that the words used in a statute have to be given their plain and literal meaning, unless such interpretation leads to absurdity. In the instant case, there is absolutely no ambiguity or absurdity in the plain and literal meaning of the words used in the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even when the meeting of the Grama Panchayat stood dissolved on account of lack of quorum, it has to be construed as no-confidence motion having been considered and negatived, is unacceptable. Such an interpretation will be contrary to the intention expressed by the legislature in the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act. Even in sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 what is expressly stated is that, ‘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.’ When the meeting gets dissolved and notice gets lapsed, question of construing it as a decision taken by the Grama Panchayat partaking the character of a resolution followed by consideration of the motion resulting in its negation, will not arise. In fact, such interpretation if adopted, will lead to absurdity. 16. In fact, such interpretation if adopted, will lead to absurdity. 16. As regards the argument canvassed by the leaned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 19, referring to the decision of this Court in the case of V.Manjunath (supra) that the prohibition contained under Section 54 has no application for the motion of no-confidence under Section 49 of the Act, in fact, the said question does not arise at all in the present case because I have already held that there is no resolution passed in the meeting held by the Grama Panchayat on 28.7.2011 because the said meeting itself stood dissolved due to lack of quorum. 17. For all the aforementioned reasons this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.