Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 100 (KAR)

H. N. Nagaveni v. Assistant Commissioner

2014-01-31

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was elected on 17.12.2012, as Adhyaksha of Paiagatti Grama Panchayat (for short 'the Panchayat'), Jagalur Taluk, Davangere District. 15 members of the Panchayat had presented a notice dated 21.12.2013, in Form-I, under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'). The 1st respondent gave notice dated 23.12.2013, in Form-II, under Rule 3(2), to the members, including Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Panchayat, fixing the date as13.01.2014, for moving 'No-Confidence Motion'. The 1st respondent having read out to the members of the Panchayat, the Motion, for consideration of which the meeting was convened, put the same to vote without any debate. The Motion was carried by majority of Members i.e., 14, constituting not less than two-thirds of total number of Members of the Panchayat. The 1st respondent made a declaration with regard to the Motion being carried. The petitioner was immediately informed to handover all the records etc., to the Panchayat Development Officer. Signatures of all the members present in the meeting was obtained. The petitioner handed over all the documents etc., relating to the Panchayat which were in her custody to the PDO. 2. The 1st respondent having appointed the 3rd respondent as the Returning Officer to conduct election to the vacant post of Adhyaksha of the Panchayat and a meeting notice dated 22.01.2014 vide Annexure-D having been issued, this writ petition was filed to quash Annexure-D. 3. Sri N. Spoorthi Hegde, learned advocate, contended that the 1st respondent has committed illegality in appointing the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Office of the Adhyaksha, since, the notification under Sub-Rule(9) removing the petitioner- Adhyaksha has not been published and hence, Annexure-D is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri N. Spoorthi Hegde, learned advocate, contended that the 1st respondent has committed illegality in appointing the Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Office of the Adhyaksha, since, the notification under Sub-Rule(9) removing the petitioner- Adhyaksha has not been published and hence, Annexure-D is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA, on the other hand contended that after the Motion of No- Confidence presented against to the petitioner was carried and the petitioner having ceased to function as the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat, apart from the declaration made in the meeting held on 13.01.2014, the Motion having been carried was informed to the Deputy Commissioner on the very day and simultaneously a notification dated 13.01.2014 was issued and the PDO was directed to exhibit the same in the notice board of the Panchayat and that the PDO having carried out the instruction has submitted compliance report dated 13.01.2014. He submitted that the petitioner has handed over all the documents etc., in her custody to the PDO on 33.01.2014 and that the notification contemplated under Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 3 removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha was immediately published in the notice board of the Panchayat and hence, there is no illegality of whatsoever nature in the matter of issuing of Annexure-D. 5. Perused the writ record. The point for consideration is, whether the notification contemplated under sub-Rule(9) of Rule 3 has been published prior to the issuance of Annexure-D? 6. No-Confidence Motion presented against the petitioner was carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of total number of the members of the Panchayat. The petitioner ceased to be the Adhyaksha of the panchayat with the Motion being carried against her on 13.01.2014. The petitioner has signed the resolution passed on 13.01.2014. The 1st respondent has notified the cessation on the notice board of the Panchayat i.e., on 13.01.2014. The petitioner has immediately handed over all the documents, money etc., of the Panchayat to the PDO. Sub-Rules (9), (10) and (11) of Rule 3 being relevant, read as follows: "3. Motion of No-confidence.- 3(1) to (8) ***** ***** ***** 9. The 1st respondent has notified the cessation on the notice board of the Panchayat i.e., on 13.01.2014. The petitioner has immediately handed over all the documents, money etc., of the Panchayat to the PDO. Sub-Rules (9), (10) and (11) of Rule 3 being relevant, read as follows: "3. Motion of No-confidence.- 3(1) to (8) ***** ***** ***** 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 cease 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 Grima Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, 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." (Italicized for emphasis) 7. The record made available by the learned AGA shows that soon after the Motion was carried, the 1st respondent has informed the 2nd respondent about not less than two-thirds of total number of the members of the Panchayat having voted in favour of the Motion and Motion having been carried through. Simultaneously, the fact of the Motion having been carried through was notified in the notice board of the Panchayat: The said notification being relevant reads as follows: Language (underlined for emphasis) 8. The PDO has submitted a report dated 13.01.2014 and the same reads as follows: Language (underlined for emphasis) 9. Simultaneously, the fact of the Motion having been carried through was notified in the notice board of the Panchayat: The said notification being relevant reads as follows: Language (underlined for emphasis) 8. The PDO has submitted a report dated 13.01.2014 and the same reads as follows: Language (underlined for emphasis) 9. Obligation of the Assistant Commissioner under Sub-Rule(9), after the motion is carried is to notify on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat about the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, having ceased to function as such, and inform the Adhyaksha or Updhyaksha, as the case may be, if he is not present at the meeting, to enable the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, to immediately handover all the documents, moneys and other properties of Grama Panchayat in his custody to the PDO of the Grama Panchayat. 10. Publishing of the notification under Sub-Rule (9), contemplated under Sub-Rule (11), contextually, when read, is to make known to the Members of the Panchayat of the motion being carried through and Adhyaksha or the Upadhyksha, as the case may be, having ceased to function as such, to enable the eligible member(s) to prepare for election to be held to fill the vacancy. 11. Notification under Sub-Rule (9), removing the petitioner having been published on 13.01.2014, in the notice board of the Panchayat, the election to the office of the Adhyaksha has been notified for being held on 01.02.2014 at 1.30 p.m., in the office of the Panchayat, by giving notice to the members vide Annexure-D. Thus, there is neither any legal infirmity much less arbitrariness on the part of the respondents 1 and 3 in the matter of issuance of Annexure-D. Consequently, the sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner being not tenable, the writ petition is rejected, with no orders as to cost.