Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 519 (KAR)

Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

2014-05-13

N.K.PATIL

body2014
Judgment : 1. In the instant cases, the petitioners are assailing the correctness of the notice dated 29.4.2014 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A and further sought for a writ of certiorari, quashing the representation dated 23.4.2014 submitted by some of the members of respondent No.3 produced at Annexure-E. 2. The contention of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, petitioners 1 and 2 are the members of respondent No.3 - Gram Panchyath and petitioner No.3 is the President of respondent No.3 - Gram Panchayath. Some of the members submitted a representation moving 'No-confidence' against petitioner No.3 and these petitioners have received notice without accompanied by 'No-confidence motion' moved by some of the members of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayath, which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that some of the members of respondent No.3 -Gram Panchayath have moved 'No-confidence' motion against petitioner No.3, which they are not entitled to do so. Taking these relevant factors into consideration, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners Sri. K.Raghupathy would submit that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside in view of Section 49 of the Act. Respondent No.2 has not complied with the statutory and mandatory provisions while issuing notice dated 29.4.2014 at Annexure-A. The said notice is violative of Section 49 read with Rule 3 of the Act. As per the said Act & Rules, fifteen days' prior notice should be issued, which has not been complied with. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2, fixing the date for considering 'No- confidence motion' moved by some of the members fixed on 15.5.2014, is liable to be set aside. 4. On careful consideration of submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners and after perusal of impugned notice and other annexures produced along with the writ petitions, it emerges that, the petitioners have sought two prayers in the writ petitions. 4. On careful consideration of submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners and after perusal of impugned notice and other annexures produced along with the writ petitions, it emerges that, the petitioners have sought two prayers in the writ petitions. One is to quash the notice dated 29.4.2014 issued by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-A and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the representation dated 23.4.2014 submitted by some of the members of respondent No.3, vide Annexure-E. It can be seen that, the petitioners knowing fully well as to who are the members who have moved 'No-confidence motion' by making representation, vide Annexure-E, the petitioners have intentionally and deliberately not impleaded the said members of respondent No.3 - Gram Panchayath as parties to these writ petitions. It is pertinent to note that petitioners 1 and 2 claim to be members of Gram Panchayath and petitioner No.3 is claiming to be the President of Gram Panchayath. They are not illiterates or ignorant. They are well aware of the members who are elected representatives of respondent No.3 -Gram Panchayath. The petitioners knowing fully well, intentionally and deliberately have not impleaded them as parties to these proceedings and seeking relief of writ of certiorari quashing representation dated 23.4.2014 submitted by some of the members of respondent No.3 who are the members, who moved 'No- confidence motion' against petitioner No.3 being well aware is not justifiable. Further intentionally they have used the words 'some of the members', which shows that they have not approached this Court with clean hands, nor have they stated true facts. The parties who suppress the true facts while redressing grievance, are not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court and this Court in various judgments. Taking into consideration these relevant aspects, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.