Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 662 (KAR)

Abraham v. State of Karnataka

2014-07-15

B.S.PATIL

body2014
ORDER B.S. Patil, J. 1. Petitioners are members of the Gram Panchayat, Sirawara village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. They are challenging the action of the respondent-Authority in convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, to consider the No-confidence Motion moved against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. 2. The twin contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are, that the impugned notices issued by the 3rd respondent were not served on the petitioners and although they purport to bear the signatures of the petitioners, the said signatures have been forged. The second contention is, that while Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'), requires two-third majority for the purpose of carrying No-confidence against the Chairperson of the Gram Panchayat, such a restriction is not imposed under Sections 140(3) and 179(3) of the Act under similar circumstances in case of Chairpersons of Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat. It is thus contended that the statutory condition requiring two-third majority for passing No-confidence Motion in the case of Chairpersons of Gram Panchayat is irrational and discriminatory. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate who takes notice for respondents 1 to 3 strongly refutes these contentions and submits that the intention of the petitioners is only to stall the No-confidence Motion initiated against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. He urges that question whether the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act requiring support of two-third of the total members for passing No-confidence against the President and Vice-President is unconstitutional, has been raised by the petitioners only to serve their design to prevent the democratic process of consideration of the No-confidence Motion. 4. As regards the first contention, this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the allegations made by the petitioners that the signatures found on the notices served on the petitioners have been forged. Service of notice on the members is effected by the officials as per the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner. Official acts done in the course of discharge of official functions have to be regarded as regularly done, unless it is proved otherwise. No material is produced in support of the serious allegations that the petitioners have made in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the said allegations in this writ petition. 5. Official acts done in the course of discharge of official functions have to be regarded as regularly done, unless it is proved otherwise. No material is produced in support of the serious allegations that the petitioners have made in this writ petition. Therefore, this Court cannot go into the said allegations in this writ petition. 5. As regards the second contention, the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed the requirement of two-third majority of members to support the resolution to be passed expressing No-confidence in the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. The intention of the legislature in treating the proceedings regarding No-confidence Motion in respect of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat in a different manner from that of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat cannot be questioned. No comparison can be drawn between the two. The Gram Panchayats operate at the village levels, whereas the Taluk Panchayats operate at the Taluka level encompassing wider and larger jurisdictional area and the Zilla Panchayats have jurisdiction over the entire District. Thus, in the three tire system of local bodies, each is different in its composition, discharge of functions and responsibilities. Petitioners who are members of the Gram Panchayat cannot make any grievance with regard to the requirement spelt out in Section 49 of Act requiring the support of two-third of the members for passing a No-confidence Motion to remove the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The apparent intention of the legislature is to prevent frequent displacement of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha at Panchayat level by a simple majority. This is obviously aimed at ensuring stability in managing the affairs of the Panchayat. Indeed there is another safeguard enacted in law by way of second proviso to Section 49 of the Act, wherein it is stated that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall be moved within one year from the date of his election. Third proviso to Section 49 further makes it clear that where matter regarding want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Gram Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be moved within one year from the date of decision of the Gram Panchayat. 6. Third proviso to Section 49 further makes it clear that where matter regarding want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Gram Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be moved within one year from the date of decision of the Gram Panchayat. 6. However, as regards Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayats, Section140(3) of the Act provides that if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of total number of elected members of the Taluk Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, he shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. First proviso thereof lays down that no resolution expressing want of confidence in Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat shall be moved within six months from the date of his election. The second proviso enacts that where a resolution expressing want of confidence has been considered and negatived by Taluk Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within six months from the date of the decision of the Taluk Panchayat. 7. Similar provision is made under Section 179(3) of the Act with regard to the no confidence motion moved or to be moved against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats providing for a simple majority for passing no confidence motion and also laying down bar for a period of six months for moving another no confidence motion within six months against the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions and their comparative examination would clearly disclose the intention of the legislature in treating the matter concerning no confidence motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayats in a different way compared to the no confidence motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats. 9. It is well established that likes should be treated alike and those who are not similarly situated cannot claim similar treatment. Moreover, the legislative intent in prescribing different yardsticks for passing No-confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat compared to the Taluk & Zilla Panchayats cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution having regard to the scheme of the relevant provisions. Therefore, the grievance made by the petitioners is totally baseless. Moreover, the legislative intent in prescribing different yardsticks for passing No-confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat compared to the Taluk & Zilla Panchayats cannot be questioned on the ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution having regard to the scheme of the relevant provisions. Therefore, the grievance made by the petitioners is totally baseless. Such a contention is misconceived in law. 10. Hence, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.