Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 263 (KAR)

Renavva v. Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad

2015-03-09

B.MANOHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. Petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a direction to the respondent to consider their representation dated 23-2-2015 and for other reliefs. The petitioners are Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Kubihal Grama Panchayat. Majority members of the Kubihal Grama Panchayat moved a No Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha under Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the signatures of some of the members have been obtained by misrepresentation and they have not signed the representation for No Confidence Motion. Some of the members have signed a representation without knowing that they are moving No Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. They made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the matter whether the persons who have signed the representation have actually signed the No Confidence Motion or the signatures taken on some other papers are being used for No Confidence Motion. Though the Assistant Commissioner issued notice on 28-2-2015, no further action has been taken. Hence, they filed the writ petition seeking direction to the Assistant Commissioner to enquire into the matter with regard to signatures in the No Confidence Motion. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent produced the records and contended that majority of the members of Kubihal Grama Panchayat moved No Confidence Motion in Form 1 expressing no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha since they have not done any developmental work to the residents of the village. The signatures contained in the representation were verified by the Competent Authority and found that the signatures are of the members of the Kubihal Grama Panchayat. On verification of these records, a special meeting has been called, fixing the date as 12-3-2015 at about 10.00 a.m. Hence, the petitioners have to prove their majority in the special meeting to be held on 12-3-2015. The question of holding an enquiry with regard to signatures of the members does not arise. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the prayer made in the writ petitions and other relevant records. 5. Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides for motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the prayer made in the writ petitions and other relevant records. 5. Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides for motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. The said motion has to be singed by the majority of members not less than 2/3rd of the total number of members of Grama Panchayat and at least 10 days clear notice with regard to No Confidence Motion has to be given. In the instant case, majority members of Kubihal Grama Panchayat have given representation expressing no confidence against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Kubihal Grama Panchayat. The signatures of the members were verified by the Competent Authority. On the basis of the said motion, the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice fixing the date of Special Meeting on 12-3-2015. The question whether the members have signed the No Confidence Motion or not has to be decided in the said meeting. The question of Assistant Commissioner holding an enquiry and to determine whether the signatures contained in the No Confidence Motion are of the members of the Kubihal Grama Panchayat or not; and whether the said signatures are obtained on misrepresentation or not cannot be decided by the Assistant Commissioner. It is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to call for special meeting for motion of no confidence. The parties have to prove their case in the said meeting. Now notice has been issued on 13-2-2015 fixing the special meeting for no confidence on 12-3-2015 at about 10.00 a.m. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry. Action taken by the Assistant Commissioner is in accordance with Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.