JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. The provisions of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act' for short) inserted by Act No.44 of 2015 with effect from 31/12/2015 have come up before this Court by way of challenge to the vires thereof or in the alternative interpretation of the same which deals with the moving of 'No Confidence Motions' against the Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of Grama Panchayats in the State of Karnataka. 2. The Rules in this regard were enacted by the State Government in the year 1994 and are known as the 'Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994' ('Rules of 1994' for short) notified in Karnataka Gazette, Extraordinary on 21/09/1994. 3. But in the present matter, the Respondent State has taken a stand before the Court that after insertion of sub-section (2) in Section 49 of the Act, with effect from 31/12/2015, the aforesaid 'Rules of 1994' with regard to moving of 'No Confidence Motions' have not been amended, however such an amendment in the Rules is said to be under active consideration by the Respondent - State. 4. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed either by the affected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas against whom such 'No Confidence motions' have been moved by the requisite number of the Members of the Grama Panchayats or even by some of the Members espousing their cause and in the writ petitions filed by Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas, the Members have sought impleadment in certain cases. But such impleadment Applications and other Interlocutory Applications need not be separately considered as on a detailed hearing of the matters at the Admission stage itself by agreement of both the sides, the present batch of writ petitions is being disposed of finally at this stage itself. 5. The relevant provisions of Section 49 in its entirety including the impugned provisions of Section 49(2) are quoted below for ready reference. "49. Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. 5. The relevant provisions of Section 49 in its entirety including the impugned provisions of Section 49(2) are quoted below for ready reference. "49. Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. - [(1)] Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a Resolutions 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 Resolutions shall be moved unless notice of the Resolutions is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the Resolutions. Provided further that no Resolutions expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved [within the first thirty months] from the date of his election: Provided also that where a Resolutions expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar Resolutions in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [within two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) no Resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved except on specific allegation of misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of the panchayat or of misappropriating funds or other assets of the panchayat during the term of his membership or otherwise indulging in corruption or misconduct in the course of exercising his functions." 6. The Rules of 1994 also, not being very elaborate, are also quoted herein below for ready reference. "1. Title and commencement.- (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. Definitions. - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "Act" means the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1993). (b) "Form" means form appended to these rules. (c) "Section" means a section of the Act. 3. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. Definitions. - In these rules unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "Act" means the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1993). (b) "Form" means form appended to these rules. (c) "Section" means a section of the Act. 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, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. - (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such members; or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) by registered posts; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Grama Panchayat. (4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat. (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 as 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) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (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 Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, reading 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." 7. (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." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have raised the following contentions before the Court:- (I) That the non obstante Clause of Section 49(2) of the Act has to be read only as a further Proviso to Section 49(1) which already comprises three Provisos and it is a safeguard provided to the elected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of the Grama Panchayats and no Motion for No Confidence (NCM) can be moved against these elected persons to the post of Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas except on the specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption, etc. as enumerated in sub-section (2) quoted above. (II) The learned counsels for the petitioners have argued that in almost all these writ petitions barring few exceptions since the nature of allegations leveled in the notice seeking to move 'No-Confidence Motion' against Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas contain only bald, general and wild allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., against these persons, the motion moved by the Members of the Grama Panchayat itself was not in accordance with Section 49(2) of the Act which provides a safeguard to them and therefore the Assistant Commissioner who is enjoined with the duty to convene the meeting of the Grama Panchayats for consideration of such 'No Confidence Motion' was not entitled to convene such a meeting for consideration by the Members of the Grama Panchayat and this Court should strike down such notices for calling the meetings for the said purpose. III. The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that Section 49(1) requires the moving of 'No Confidence Motion' at least by one half of the total number of Members and a majority of not less than two third of the total number of Members of Grama Panchayat for passing such Resolutions of 'No Confidence Motion' and then only the Office of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha is deemed to have been vacated by him. They further submitted that at least a minimum of ten days' notice has to be given by the Members expressing their intention to move such a Resolutions of 'No Confidence Motion' as per the First Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. They further submitted that at least a minimum of ten days' notice has to be given by the Members expressing their intention to move such a Resolutions of 'No Confidence Motion' as per the First Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. (IV) The Second Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act provides for an initial moratorium period of first 30 months from the date of his election and therefore no such 'No Confidence Motion' can be moved against the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha within first 30 months from the date of his election. (V) The Third Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act further provides that if such a 'No Confidence Motion' is negatived by the Grama Panchayat once, then, a similar Resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha cannot be moved within two years from the date of such earlier Resolution negatived by the Grama Panchayat. (VI) They submitted that normal period of office of the Members of the Grama Panchayat as well as Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha is five years and the purpose of providing the initial moratorium period of 30 months and providing for a minimum number of one half of the Members to move such a Resolutions and two third of majority to pass such a Resolutions are all safeguards provided to such Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas by the said enactment to provide them the requisite stability in office, so that they can carry out the work of the Grama Panchayaths with peace and stability. (VII) Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that sub-section (2) was brought on the Statute Book to provide a further safeguard to such Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of the Grama Panchayats to the effect that no Resolutions of 'No Confidence Motion' shall be moved, except on specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., as stipulated in sub-Section (2) under any circumstances and therefore even before the period of initial moratorium of 30 months or after that period, any such motion of No confidence (NCM) against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha can be moved only on the basis of the specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., and under no other circumstances, such a motion can be moved by any Member or Members, even if they are more than half of the total number of Members of Grama panchayat. (VIII) The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, contended that since the impugned notices for 'No Confidence Motion' in the present cases do not even fit in the parameters of Section 49(2) of the Act, therefore, the motions themselves were illegal and summoning of meetings by the Assistant Commissioner to consider such motions deserve to be quashed by this Court and the motions even having been considered and passed by Members in some of the cases, such Resolutions also deserve to be quashed by this Court, allowing the petitioners to continue in the office of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha in which they were elected in the year 2015 and by now they have not completed their full term of five years. (IX) The learned counsels for the petitioners also submitted that in the absence of any specific Rules enacted or amended after 1994, such motions without specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., cannot be allowed to be considered because the un-amended Rules of 1994 do not permit any debate on the merits of the motion and only after the Assistant Commissioner convenes such meeting and at such meeting reads out to the Members of the Grama Panchayat the motion for consideration, he shall put the same to vote without any debate as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994. (X) Rule 8 further provides that the Assistant Commissioner himself shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he would not be entitled to vote thereon. (X) Rule 8 further provides that the Assistant Commissioner himself shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he would not be entitled to vote thereon. (XI) Thus, the learned counsels for the petitioners argued that a serious consequence of vacation of Office of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha can follow even without any debate or inquiry in the allegations against such elected persons merely if half of the Members of Grama Panchayat move such a 'No Confidence Motion' and without any inquiry they may be thrown out of the elected offices even though the allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., may be absolutely false or baseless and in the said process it may not only severely tarnish and damage the reputation of the elected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas, but such persons may be condemned and removed from the office unheard and therefore such motions should not be allowed to be moved and considered, unless in compliance with the principles of natural justice, at least, some kind of inquiry is held into the nature of allegations as to whether they are specific or not and whether they are sufficient to allow a motion of 'No Confidence' to be considered by the Members of the Grama Panchayat or not. (XII) In the alternative, the learned counsels for the petitioners argued that if the said provision of Section 49(2) of the Act cannot be read in the aforesaid manner harmoniously with Section 49(1) of the Act, then the provision of Section 49(2) itself deserves to be struck down as ultra vires by this Court and the consequent motions and actions or Resolutions in the present cases also deserve to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. A.S. Ponnanna relying upon the Affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Dr. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. A.S. Ponnanna relying upon the Affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Dr. Nagambika Devi submitted the following:- (I) That Section 49(2) of the Act inserted by Act No.44 of 2015 and Gazetted on 31/12/2015 which came into effect on 25/02/2016 is mandated to provide a safeguard to the elected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of Grama Panchayats so that no such Resolutions for 'No Confidence Motion' (NCM) can be moved even by the minimum requisite number of half of the total Members of the Grama panchayat except on the specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., specified in Section 49(2) of the Act and with its non obstante Clause it should actually be construed to be a further Proviso in the Scheme of Section 49(1) of the Act itself which provides for an initial moratorium period of 30 months under Second Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. (II) The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the State Legislature taking note of the constant change of Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas by using the mechanism of 'No Confidence Motion' (NCM) came up with two safeguards in terms of Provisos to Section 49(1) of the Act and then sub-section (2) of Section 49 and to provide the security of office to the elected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas even after the lapse of 30 months such motions cannot be moved on the whims and fancies of the Members, but it must be based on the specific allegations against the Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas as stipulated under Section 49(2) of the Act. (III) The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted before the Court that recently the State Government has issued the Circular No. RDP 887 GPA 2017 dated 07/02/2018, which is quoted below in extenso and which contains certain Guidelines with respect to Rules of 1994 to enable the Members to move the 'No Confidence Motions' against the Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of Grama Panchayats. (III) The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted before the Court that recently the State Government has issued the Circular No. RDP 887 GPA 2017 dated 07/02/2018, which is quoted below in extenso and which contains certain Guidelines with respect to Rules of 1994 to enable the Members to move the 'No Confidence Motions' against the Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of Grama Panchayats. The said Circular dated 07/02/2018 inter alia provides that the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Sub-Division shall be the competent Authority to accept the notice in respect of 'No Confidence Motion' under the Rules of 1994 and to call the meeting of Grama Panchayats for the same and he will ensure that Conditions at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the said Circular are available before accepting the notice for 'No Confidence Motion'. He will further ensure that the 'No Confidence Motion' should have the specific allegations as mandated in sub-section (2), and after receipt of 'No Confidence Motion' by the Members with specific allegations against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, he shall refer the same to the Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayat within two days asking him to furnish the Factual Report about the allegations. Then the Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayat, on and based on such Report of the Executive Officer, receipt of the same, shall inquire into the same based on the available facts and submit a factual Report within one week the Assistant Commissioner shall take further necessary action to fix the date for meeting to take up such 'No confidence Motion' (NCM) for consideration by the Members of the Grama Panchayats in accordance with the Rules of 1994. (IV) The learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that the Circular dated 07/02/2018 will come into effect only from date of the Circular dated 07/02/2018 and it does not have any retrospective effect. The said Circular dated 07/02/2018 is quoted below for ready reference: "Government of Karnataka No. RDP 887 GPA 2017 Date: 07-02-2018 Karnataka Government Secretariat M.S. Building Bangalore CIRCULAR Sub: No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats. The said Circular dated 07/02/2018 is quoted below for ready reference: "Government of Karnataka No. RDP 887 GPA 2017 Date: 07-02-2018 Karnataka Government Secretariat M.S. Building Bangalore CIRCULAR Sub: No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats. Ref: Karnataka Panchayat Raj (No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules 1994 ****** Consequent to the amendment brought to Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 in 2nd amendment 2015 (2015 Karnataka Act No-44), the following changes have been brought in to the Section 49 (No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat). I. Sub-Section 1: 1. No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats should not be moved within 30 months of their election. 2. Not less than 50% of the total strength of Grama Panchayat members should have filed the notice of No-Confidence motion. Such notice indicating No-Confidence should be given at least 10 days in advance. 3. If the No-Confidence motion is passed by not less than two third members of the Grama Panchayath, the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats shall vacate their position. 4. If no-confidence Motion against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats once failed then it shall not be moved once again another period of two years. II. Sub-Section 2: No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats shall not be moved without any specific allegations which are as follows. Specific allegations relating to misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of the panchayat or of misappropriating funds or other assets of the panchayat during the term of his/her membership or otherwise indulging in corruption or misconduct in the course of exercising his/her functions. Section 49 provides for the procedure to be followed in a meeting of the Grama Panchayat. Accordingly, the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 have been constituted to enable members to move No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats. The proposal to amend the said rules is under consideration of Government. Before bringing amendment to the rules Government felt it is necessary certain to issue the following guidelines. The proposal to amend the said rules is under consideration of Government. Before bringing amendment to the rules Government felt it is necessary certain to issue the following guidelines. The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Sub-Division has been appointed as the competent authority to accept notice in respect of the No-Confidence motion under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and to call the meeting of the Grama Panchayat for the same. The Assistant Commissioner should ensure the conditions at serial no.1, 2 and 4 above are fulfilled before accepting the notice for No-Confidence motion. It should be ensured that the No-Confidence motion against the Adhyaksha/ Upadhyaksha should have specific allegations as mandated at serial no.2 above. The Assistant Commissioner after receipt of the no-confidence motion by members with specific allegation against the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha shall refer the same to the Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayat within two days asking to furnish the factual report about the allegations. Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayat on receipt of the allegations against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha shall enquire into the same based on the available facts and submit a report within one week. Based on the report of the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner shall take further necessary action to fix the date for taking up the No-Confidence motion. Besides this action has to be taken as per provisions specified in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. The above guidelines shall be strictly followed in respect of No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats. Sd/- (M.K. Kempegowda) Director (PR-1) and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Dept." (V) On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ponnanna therefore submitted that the motions moved in the present cases have been moved in accordance with Section 49(2) of the Act and under the interim orders of this Court allowing such motions to be considered by the Members of the Grama Panchayat, the same have been considered by the Members of the Grama Panchayats in accordance with the Rules of 1994 and in almost all the cases, the motion has been carried out by 2/3rd majority required resulting in the vacation of the Office of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the concerned Grama Panchayats. The details of such motions considered and carried out and Resolutions passed, in the form of a Chart as submitted by the learned Government counsel are also quoted below for ready reference. MEETING PROCEEDINGS Sl. The details of such motions considered and carried out and Resolutions passed, in the form of a Chart as submitted by the learned Government counsel are also quoted below for ready reference. MEETING PROCEEDINGS Sl. No. W.P.No. Gram Panchayat Date of Election Total Members Meeting In favour Meeting Against Absent OH 1 5395/2018 Yaraballi, Hiriyur taluk 07-02-2018 17 16 01 00 - 2 2036/2018 Kellodu Hosadurga taluk 31-01-2018 17 13 04 0 - 3 1950/2018 Jinnagara Kunigal taluk 24-01-2018 15 11 01 03 - 4 1779/2018 Medehalli, Chitradurga taluk 20-01-2018 251 18 01 02 - 5 1724/2018 Chikkabennur, Chitradurga taluk 22-01-2018 17 12 05 00 - 6 1935/2018 Basavanahalli, Nelamangala taluk 03-02-2018 21 17 04 00 - 7 4676/2018 Thyamagondlu, Nelamangala taluk 03-02-2018 21 17 04 00 - 8 4674/2018 Aralakuppe, Pandavapura taluk 31-01-2018 18 13 05 00 - 9 3161/2018 Somaguddu, Chitradurga taluk 19-01-2018 15 12 03 00 - 10 3980/2018 Lalandevanahalli, K.R. Nagar taluk 06-02-2018 23 23 00 00 - 11 4375/2018 Dashavara, Ramanagara taluk 03-02-2018 11 09 02 00 - 12 4855/2018 Kalledevarapura, Jagalur taluk 13 09 00 04 - 13 5027/2018 Dasarahalli, hikkamagaluru taluk 06-02-2018 08 06 02 00 - 14 4446/2018 Narayanapura, Beluru taluk 01-02-2018 17 13 03 01 - 15 4363/2018 Hunuganahalli, Sakaleshapura taluk 01-02-2018 0- 06 03 00 - 16 3978-79/2018 Byadarahalli, K.R. Nagara taluk 06-02-2018 15 11 04 00 - 17 3970/2018 Haranahalli, Arasikere taluk 05-02-2018 15 11 04 00 - 18 3541/2018 Allampura, Chikkamagaluru taluk 01-01-2018 12 11 01 00 - 19 3848/2018 Vanivilasapura, Hiriyur taluk 01-02-2018 22 21 01 00 - 20 6372/2018 Halebeedu 15-02-2018 17 15 02 00 - 21 4429/2028 Madhuvanahalli 08-02-2018 29 21 01 07 - 22 4958/2018 Chinniga 09-02-2018 10 07 01 00 02 23 5024/2018 Kungalli 14-02-2018 18 11 02 00 - 24 1935-36/2018 Basavanahalli 01-01-2018 17 13 04 00 - 25 5645/2018 Talaguppa 17-02-2018 11 08 03 00 - 26 5394/2018 Hanclikuppa 15-02-2018 16 13 03 00 - 27 5911/2018 Choradi 29-01-2018 10 08 00 02 - 28 5953/2018 Naranapura 19-02-2018 08 06 02 00 - 29 6234/2018 Nuggihalli 15-02-2018 10 07 03 00 - 30 6009/2018 Melinabesige 10 07 03 00 - 31 7733/2018 Thimalapura, G.P. 15 14 01 05 - 32 4504/2018 Nagaramgere, G.P. 09-02-2018 22 16 01 05 - 33 6955/2018 Kondalahalli, G.P. 21-02-2018 24 16 08 00 - 34 5882-84/2018 Rammanahalli, G.P. 17-02-2018 23 20 03 00 - 35 6501-02/2018 Benakanahalli, G.P. 16-02-2018 15 11 01 03 - 36 8128/2018 Devveerammanah 20-02-2018 26 16 00 00 - 37 7745/2018 Sutturu, G.P. 20-02-2018 13 13 00 0 - 38 6386/2018 Hegguru, G.P. 15-02-2018 40 6532/2018 Kangadahalli, G.P. 20-02-2018 18 12 06 00 - Sd/- Place: Bengaluru Date: 22-02-2018 A.K. VASANTH GOVT. ADVOCATE. (VI) In two of the writ petitions, viz. in Writ Petition No. 3434/2018 (Smt. Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka and others) for Hirehally Grama Panchayat and Writ Petition No. 3435/2018 (Smt. Lathamma Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and others) for Siddeshwaranadurga Grama Panchayat, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed interim orders staying the operation of the notice for meeting issued by the Assistant Commissioner itself and therefore, the meetings for these two Grama Panchayats for considering the 'No Confidence Motion' could not be held so far. (VII) It appears the previously passed interim order dated 18/01/2018 was perhaps not brought to the notice of the coordinate bench on 23/01/2018 and 24/01/2018, respectively. (VIII) However, in these two writ petitions also, the learned counsels representing the concerned Members who moved for such 'No confidence Motion' vehemently argued for vacating the said interim orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench on 23/1/2018 and 24/01/2018, respectively. (IX) In accordance with the interim orders passed in all other cases of this nature on 18/01/2018 where the Court permitted such meeting to be held and the result of the meeting to be produced before the Court in sealed covers before this Court and upon production of such sealed covers, with the permission of the Court, the learned Additional Advocate General has opened the sealed covers and prepared the Summary of the same as given above and the same have been placed on record of the Court. 9. The interim order passed on 18/01/2018 in other cases is quoted below for ready reference. 1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted before the Court that the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioners, who are Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the Respondent - Basavanahalli Grama Panchayat has been moved by the Members of the said Gram Panchayat without any specific allegations of misuse or abuse of powers or of corruption, etc. against the petitioners as required under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act of 1993' for short) and since the said non obstante provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act of 1993 covers all cases of 'No Confidence Motions' against Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas of the Gram Panchayats, such motions cannot be moved without containing any specific allegation of misuse or abuse of powers or of corruption etc. against such Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas and therefore the impugned motion and the consequential meeting called by the Respondent Assistant Commissioner for considering the said 'No Confidence Motion' by the Members of Gram Panchayat deserves interference by this Court. 2. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, providing for the procedure of moving such 'No Confidence Motion' under Rule 3 has not been amended after insertion of Sub-section (2) in Section 49 of the Act of 1993 by Act No.44 of 2015, with effect from 31/12/2015 and therefore, the procedure for consideration of the 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 49(2) of the Act of 1993 is not even specified in the Rules. 3. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Act of 1993 providing for initial moratorium period of 30 months and requirement of motion to be moved by at least one half of the total Members for considering the 'No Confidence Motions' in a normal situation does not affect Section 49(2) of the Act of 1993 and since Section 49 (2) of the Act of 1993 applies to all Resolutions of 'No Confidence' with regard to Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas, the existence of a specific allegation against such persons is necessary and without that no such motion can be considered, even though such motions may be moved even within the moratorium period of 30 months, in view of the non obstante provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act of 1993. 4. The question, whether all such 'No Confidence Motions' against Adhyakshas/ Upadhyakshas can be moved only under Section 49(2) or can be so moved under Section 49(1) also without any allegations of misuse or abuse of powers or of corruption under Section 49(1) of the Act of 1993, will require consideration and a proper and harmonious interpretation of the two Sub- sections of Section 49 of the Act of 1993. 5. Hence, Issue Notice. 6. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. A.K. Vasanth accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 - State. 7. The Nodal Officer, Mr. Santhoshkumar Killedar appears for Respondent No.3 - Grama Panchayat. He may be supplied with a copy of the writ petitions along with Annexures. 8. The Respondents may file their response within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Heard for interim relief also. 10. 7. The Nodal Officer, Mr. Santhoshkumar Killedar appears for Respondent No.3 - Grama Panchayat. He may be supplied with a copy of the writ petitions along with Annexures. 8. The Respondents may file their response within a period of four weeks from today. 9. Heard for interim relief also. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that there are no allegations of misuse or abuse of powers or of corruption, etc., in the motion moved by the Members of the said Grama Panchayat, it is directed that let the Meeting for consideration of the said Motion for No Confidence be held and motion be considered by the Members of the said Grama panchayat on the scheduled date as already notified by the Assistant Commissioner and the result of the said Meeting and the Resolution may be placed before the Court in a sealed cover and the effect of such Resolution will be given thereafter subject to the further orders of this Court. 11. In view of the importance of the matter, the learned Advocate General is requested to assist the Court. 12. A separate copy of the writ petitions be supplied to the learned Advocate General. 13. Put up on 08-02-2018, as prayed." 10. After the said interim order dated 18/01/2018, another order was passed by this Court subsequently on 08/02/2018. The said order dated 08/02/2018 is also quoted below for ready reference. "1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. A.S. Ponnanna appearing for Respondent - State for some time. 3. The stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State Government is that the Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act' for short) inserted by Act No. 44 of 2015 with effect from 31/12/2015 is to provide a safeguard to the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayats so that no Resolution for 'No Confidence' for such Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha can be moved even by the minimum requisite number of half of the total Members of Gram Panchayats except on specific allegations of misuse or abuse of powers or corruption etc. as specified in Section 49(2) of the Act and therefore, section 49(2) of the Act with its non obstante Clause should actually be construed to be a further Proviso to be read in the scheme of Section 49(1) of the Act itself which provides for an initial moratorium period of 30 months under the second Proviso of Section 49(1) of the Act. 4. A similar contention has been raised by some of the petitioners also. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has further produced before this Court a recent Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 07/02/2018 only yesterday containing certain guidelines regarding 'No Confidence Motions' against Adhyaksha /Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayats which is taken on record and a copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners also. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General is directed to file an Affidavit of the concerned Principal Secretary of the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department of the State Government for the aforesaid submissions made by the learned AAG for the Respondent State within a period of one week from today. 7. The aforesaid Additional Affidavit should also state the stand on behalf of the State as to whether the Guidelines enumerated in the said Circular dated 07/02/2018 which envisage a kind of summary inquiry to be held at the level of the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat and submit a factual Report about the allegations to the Assistant Commissioner within one week and such Guidelines having not been admittedly applied in the cases involved in the present writ petitions in which 'No Confidence Motion' has been taken up at the behest of the requisite number of Members of the Gram Panchayat and under interim order granted by this Court, the Meeting of Gram Panchayat has also been held and as per the Report submitted by the learned Government counsel today in the cases of 20 such Gram Panchayats, thus almost in all the cases, such 'No Confidence' motions have been carried out by the requisite majority and thus resulting in the vacation of the respective Offices of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the concerned Gram Panchayats under Section 49(1) of the Act. The question is, whether the Guidelines in the Circular dated 07/02/2018 can be applied retrospectively for these proceedings involved in the present writ petitions or not and what is the stand of the State Government in this regard. 8. In the said Circular dated 07/02/2018, it is also stated that the proposal to amend the relevant Rules namely, Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 in consonance with the amendment effected by Act No. 44 of 2015 is also under consideration by the State Government, therefore, the State Government may also take a stand before the Court as to whether such an amendment in the Rules of 1994 has been effected by them or not and the status of the process for such amendments to be effected and the possible time likely to be taken by them for such amendment in the Rules. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General is therefore directed to file an Affidavit of the concerned Principal Secretary on or before the next date of hearing, on 22- 02-2018. 10. The learned Additional Advocate General is also directed to further produce on record the copy of the summary of the Proceedings/Resolution passed in the Meetings of the Gram Panchayats involved in the present batch of writ petitions before this Court along with a Chart showing the position of the Motion of 'No confidence' carried out or not with the copies of the relevant proceedings of the said Meetings before this Court along with the aforesaid Affidavit, with their English translations. 11. This Court in this case had already passed an interim order to the effect that the said Meeting for consideration of the said Motion for 'No confidence' be held and motion be considered by the Members of the Gram Panchayat on the scheduled date as already notified and the result of the said Meeting and the Resolution may be placed before the Court in a sealed cover which have been received by the learned Government Counsel today and one such Resolution in the case of Yeraballi Gram Panchayat was read before this Court. Since the same is in vernacular language, which is not understood by this Court, the learned Government counsel is directed to produce the copies of the Proceedings of all the Meetings along with the translated copies of the said Minutes on the next date of hearing. 12. The interim order has already been passed by this Court on 18/01/2018 that the effect of such Resolution will be given subject to further orders by this Court. 13. After hearing the learned counsels today at length, it is found appropriate that the Resolution of 'No confidence' passed in the Gram Panchayat involved in the present writ petitions, shall not be given effect to as of now and the status-quo as it existed prior to passing of the said Resolution shall be maintained by the concerned Gram Panchayat and this status will remain subject to the final decision of the present writ petitions. 14. Put up on 22-02-2018, as prayed." 11. These writ petitions were finally heard on 22/02/2018 by this Court. 12. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and having given earnest consideration to the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that Section 49(2) of the Act inserted by Act No. 44 of 2015 with effect from 31/12/2015 is a constitutionally valid and a sustainable provision and there is no ground or reason available to the petitioners to challenge the same as ultra vires. There is neither any lack of legislative competence nor the said provisions are found to be in conflict with or militating against any of the constitutional provisions nor the said provisions can be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The said provisions on the other hand have very sound and reasonable basis and sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act as canvassed by both the sides before this Court is actually intended to provide a safeguard to the elected Offices of the Adhyaksha/ Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat and these provisions are intended to save the unnecessary throwing out of the elected persons from these Offices of the Adhyaksha Upadhyaksha without there being any case of specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of funds or corruption etc. against these elected persons. 14. against these elected persons. 14. The case undoubtedly calls for a harmonious interpretation of the said later on inserted provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act and that is what has been considered by this Court and the opinion of this Court is recorded below. 15. The non obstante provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act which stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no Resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha shall be moved except on specific allegation of misuse or abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of funds, corruption, etc., is actually intended to over come the restriction of initial moratorium period of 30 months provided in the second Proviso and further restriction of two years in the Third Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. 16. The purpose of providing for special contingencies in Section 49(2) of the Act namely of misuse or abuse of power or Authority or misappropriation of funds, corruption etc., which contingencies can arise even in the initial period of elected persons to the Office of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, namely within 30 months of their election and to enable the Members to move for 'No Confidence Motion' (NCM) even in entire period throughout their tenure, sub-section (2) has been inserted. The said safeguards of the Resolution to be moved by a minimum half of the Members of the Grama Panchayat and to be passed with minimum 2/3rd of the majority as per sub-section (1) continue even with a non obstante Clause in sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act. 17. The well settled Rules of Interpretation for interpreting a non obstante Clause is to provide for an overriding provision to override any repugnancy or inconsistency with the other provision, so that the provision with a non obstante Clause can have a preference over such other repugnancies or inconsistent provisions. 18. In the opinion of this Court, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act does not completely eclipse, supersede or override the entire provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 49, but the non- obstante Clause intends to override only restrictions of moratorium period of 30 months and two years respectively in Second and Third Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. It is to be harmoniously read as an adjunct and further Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act to meet with the specific contingencies of misuse or abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of funds or corruption etc. where the Members of the Grama Panchayat can take up the motion for 'No Confidence' of such elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha notwithstanding the restriction of initial moratorium period of 30 months or two years provided in Second and Third Proviso in sub-section 49(1) of the Act. 19. It is true that sub-section (2) may be construed as a further safeguard to the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayats and such Resolutions under Sub-section (2) can be moved only on the specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or Authority, misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., but sub-section (2) does not dispense with Section 49(1) altogether and Section 49(2) of the Act, in the opinion of this Court, has to be read harmoniously with some reading down of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act. 20. The provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act are however not very happily worded. The words "no Resolution" will have to be read contextually with the specified circumstances in the said provision, because there is always a strong presumption for the constitutionality of any legislative provision and if the provision can be sustained by a reading down of the provision or upon a harmonious interpretation thereof, the Courts would go for the later option, rather than striking down the provision itself. 21. The words "no Resolution" just following the non obstante Clause in sub-section (2), which says, "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)", the words 'no Resolution' have to be read in the context of the specified contingencies envisaged in sub- section (2), namely, of misuse or abuse of power or authority, misappropriation of funds, corruption, etc." Thus, whenever a Resolution or 'No Confidence Motion' has to be moved in specific circumstances under Section 49(2) of the Act, the allegations with regard to such circumstances have to be specific. Sub-section (2) however does not mean that in a usual and normal course, 'No Resolution' for 'No Confidence' in a normal democratic process envisaged under Section 49(1) without any allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds, corruption, etc., can never be moved at all and that every such Resolution under Section 49 of the Act has to be with specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds, corruption etc. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, subject to the safeguards of one half of the Members required to move it and the initial moratorium period of 30 months, envisages a normal 'No Confidence Motion', if the Members of the Grama panchayat just lose their confidence in the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, without any allegation at all, after first 30 months, the one half Members of the Grama Panchayat can very well move a motion for expressing their 'No Confidence' against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and such a liberty given to these Members is not prohibited by the insertion of Section 49(2) of the Act. 23. Therefore, the words "no Resolution" employed in Section 49(2) of the Act has to be restricted to the contingencies envisaged and arising as stipulated in Section 49(2) of the Act itself, namely of abuse or misuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds, corruption etc. Both the provisions in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 49 therefore can co-exist and harmoniously construed, by a reading down of these words 'No Resolution' in the context of contingencies specified in sub-section (2). That is what appears to be the real purpose of enacting and inserting sub-section (2) under Section 49 of the Act, in 2015. 24. The other words "specific allegations" are also required to be construed contextually in Section 49(2) of the Act, since the Rules of 1994 in this regard do not envisage any inquiry into such allegations and on the other hand, the consideration of such a motion even does not permit a debate on merits. 24. The other words "specific allegations" are also required to be construed contextually in Section 49(2) of the Act, since the Rules of 1994 in this regard do not envisage any inquiry into such allegations and on the other hand, the consideration of such a motion even does not permit a debate on merits. On the basis of the specific allegations, there are other provisions in the Act for removal of the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha like Section 43-A of the Act and even normal criminal cases can be filed against them, if a specific case of corruption or misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption is made out. But Section 49 of the Act deals only with 'No Confidence Motions' which is a normal democratic exercise envisaged and enacted under Section 49 of the Act to be exercised by the Members of the Gram Panchayat itself, who do not have any such investigation powers under the Act. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners - Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha that in the absence of any specific allegations, the motion itself should fail and the consideration of the same cannot be permitted, is devoid of merit, because the requirement of there being specific allegations for contingencies provided in Section 49(2) of the Act is only for the Assistant Commissioner to see whether to convene the Meeting of Members of the Grama Panchayat or not. It is not for any other purpose. No inquiry in the allegations, nor any formation of opinion or giving of any findings after hearing the concerned parties is envisaged in Section 49(2) of the Act. The recent Circular dated 07/02/2018 also only stipulates of giving of a Factual Report by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat to assist the Assistant Commissioner to determine that the 'No Confidence Motion' falls within the parameters of Section 49(2) of the Act and he should convene the meeting of the Members of Grama Panchayat for that purpose or not. If there are no specific allegations, such a motion will fall under Section 49(1) of the Act and can be considered by the Members subject to restrictions under Section 49(1) of the Act. 26. If there are no specific allegations, such a motion will fall under Section 49(1) of the Act and can be considered by the Members subject to restrictions under Section 49(1) of the Act. 26. The words "specific allegations" are intended to provide a further safety measure to the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and they should not be ousted from the Office on vague/bald/false/wild allegations and therefore the Members who move for 'No confidence' against such Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha should narrate something specific alleging the misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc., as envisaged under Section 49(2) of the Act, but it is only for the Assistant Commissioner to look into the nature of allegations made and if he is satisfied that the motion falls within the parameters of Section 49(2) of the Act, then convene a meeting otherwise not. Section 49(2) of the Act does not compel the Assistant Commissioner to necessarily hold a meeting of the Members if such a motion is presented to him for convening such meeting. But however if he convenes such a meeting, then the Rules framed in this regard in 1994 do not envisage any further role for the Assistant Commissioner. He has to just read the motion in the meeting convened by him and then allow the Members to vote for the motion of 'No confidence' without any debate as per the existing un-amended Rules. 27. If there are no specific allegations against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and such motion is moved under Section 49(2) of the Act, such a motion can only be treated as a 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 49(1) of the Act and has to meet the requirements of Section 49(1) of the Act viz. it has to be subject to the restriction under Section 49(1) of the Act including its Second and Third Proviso. The Assistant Commissioner can put such motion in the Meeting of the Members to be considered by them under Section 49(1) of the Act. 28. Once the Resolution or 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 49(2) of the Act is taken up for consideration by the Members, it is required to be passed as per the requirement of 2/3rd majority as per Section 49(1) of the Act only. 28. Once the Resolution or 'No Confidence Motion' under Section 49(2) of the Act is taken up for consideration by the Members, it is required to be passed as per the requirement of 2/3rd majority as per Section 49(1) of the Act only. The democratic process of removal from the Office of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha by passing of a 'No Confidence Motion' by 2/3rd majority of total number of Members of Grama Panchayat under Section 49 of the Act is just contrary to the provisions of removal of Members provided in Section 43-A of the Act, where on the recommendation of the Grama Panchayat or otherwise, the State Government may remove any Member after giving him an opportunity of hearing and after such inquiry, as it deems necessary. 29. Section 43-A of the Act is also quoted below for ready reference. “43-A. Removal of members. - (1) The Government if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, or otherwise, may remove any member after giving him an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as it deems necessary, - (i) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or of any disgraceful conduct; (ii) become incapable of performing duties as a member, or persistently remiss in performing duties; (a) on being medically unfit to hold the post as may be certified by the district surgeon; (b) as a result of insolvency or of unsound mind, (iii) has failed to attend four consecutive meetings of the panchayat, and in the case of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, failed to convene two consecutive meetings which were either due or were necessary; or (iv) if the member, by coercion or fraud entice any voter or member of Gram Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat as the case may be to trade the post of member or Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat, as the case may be, during election for a consideration. (v) in the execution of any work of the panchayat, contractual or otherwise found involved directly with any person who is a nearest relative in the family or otherwise associated in any transaction related to such work as a partner, employee or a member on the Committee of such organization, or otherwise. (v) in the execution of any work of the panchayat, contractual or otherwise found involved directly with any person who is a nearest relative in the family or otherwise associated in any transaction related to such work as a partner, employee or a member on the Committee of such organization, or otherwise. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, nearest relative in the family means, - (a) the wife or husband of a person residing with her or him; (b) son or daughter or step-son or step- daughter; (c) any other person related, whether by blood or marriage who is wholly dependent on such person. (2) An Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or member so removed shall cease to function as such member and shall be disqualified from contesting election as provided in Sections 12 of the Act to any panchayat for the next six years." 30. If a Member is removed from the Membership of Grama Panchayat, naturally he loses his right to remain Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the said Grama Panchayat. The provisions of Section 43-A includes the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat also in their capacity as a Member of the Grama Panchayat. 31. The other provision in the Act with regard to removal from the Office in the Grama Panchayat is Section 48 of the Act which provides for Resignation or Removal of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha on the ground of proven physical or mental incapacity certified by a competent Authority or on the grounds of securing employment elsewhere. 32. The said provisions of Section 48 are also quoted below for ready reference. "48. Resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. - (1) The Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and the Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Adhyaksha and in absence of the Adhyaksha to the Assistant Commissioner. Provided that Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Gram Panchayat shall resign his office of membership, or liable for removal. Provided that Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Gram Panchayat shall resign his office of membership, or liable for removal. - (i) on the grounds of proven physical or mental incapacity certified by a competent authority approved by the State Election Commission; or (ii) on the grounds of securing employment in Central Government or State Government or public undertaking: Provided further that the Assistant Commissioner shall enquire into the cause of resignation and satisfy that resignation has not been submitted under threat, coercion, undue influence and allurement and is submitted voluntarily: Provided also that the Deputy Commissioner shall enquire after receipt of a complaint that resignation is submitted under threat, coercion, undue influence and allurement and is not submitted voluntarily, shall not accept such resignation." Thus, there are safeguards provided in all these provisions for removal of elected persons of Grama Panchayats. 33. Section 179 of the Act deals with resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayats, but since the Court is presently concerned only with the cases of Grama Panchayats, those provisions and Sections are not quoted below. 34. Thus, Section 48 of the Act also envisages two situations of vacation of Office of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, (i) by resignation, (ii) by removal on the ground of proven physical or mental incapacity or securing employment in the Central Government or State Government or Public Undertakings. 35. Section 51 of the Act talks of casual vacancies in the Office of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha or Member of the Grama Panchayat. 36. Thus, Section 49 providing for vacation of the Office of Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of a Grama Panchayat is the only provision providing for a democratic process to be undertaken by the Members of the Grama Panchayat on their own without any formal inquiry against such Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and just because if the Members lose confidence or faith in the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha elected by themselves upon the requisite conditions specified, they can move such a Resolution for 'No confidence' and if such a Resolution is passed by a majority of 2/3rd of the total number of Members, such Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha shall be deemed to have forthwith vacated his Office. 37. On a conjoint, combined and harmonious reading of Section 49(1) of the Act, the following conclusions can be deduced:- (I) Notice for such Resolutions can be moved only by one half of the total number of Members after a ten days' notice. 37. On a conjoint, combined and harmonious reading of Section 49(1) of the Act, the following conclusions can be deduced:- (I) Notice for such Resolutions can be moved only by one half of the total number of Members after a ten days' notice. (II) No such 'No Confidence Motion' can be moved against Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha within the first 30 months from the date of their election except under the specified circumstances under Section 49(2) of the Act. (III) Where such a 'No Confidence Motion' has failed once, a similar Resolution for 'No Confidence' against them cannot be moved within two years from the said failure, except under the specified circumstances under Section 49(2) of the Act; (IV) No Resolution, overriding the aforesaid period of restrictions provided in Second and Third Proviso of sub-section (1) can be moved unless they contain specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption, etc., as per Section 49(2) of the Act. (V) A motion for 'No Confidence' under sub- section (2) of Section 49 of the Act though can be moved on specific grounds only, ultimately remains a 'No confidence motion' to be considered by all the Members of the Grama Panchayat and it remains subject to mode and method for its consideration as per sub-section (1) viz. that is also is required to be moved by one half or more of the total number of Members and is required to be passed by more than 2/3rd of the total number of Members in order to become operative and effective. (VI) The restriction provided in Second and Third Proviso of Section 49(1) of the Act, namely, the initial moratorium period of 30 months and restriction of two years, if once such motion fails is the only thing intended to be overridden by the non obstante Clause of Section 49(2) of the Act. (VII) In other words, in the specified circumstances in Section 49 (2) of the Act, such a motion can be moved even within 30 months of the election to their Office and even within two years of the previous failure of one such Resolution. (VII) In other words, in the specified circumstances in Section 49 (2) of the Act, such a motion can be moved even within 30 months of the election to their Office and even within two years of the previous failure of one such Resolution. (VIII) This is the purpose for providing a non obstante Clause in sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act, because the contingencies provided for removing Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and in resorting to sub- section (2) are of grave nature and in the cases of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption, etc. by the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, the Members need not wait for the restrictions of periods envisaged in Second and Third Proviso of Section 49(1) of the Act, namely for a period of 30 months and two years respectively and on the specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption, etc. they can resort to Section 49(2) of the Act and pass such Resolution with 2/3rd majority. (IX) The purpose is obvious that if an elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha is found to be indulging in corrupt activities or misuse or abuse of power or authority, he/she should not be tolerated necessarily by the mandate of law for a period of 30 months or for the next two years. If the Members can make the specific allegations against him/her, notwithstanding the restrictions contained in Second and Third Proviso of Section 49(1) of the Act, they can resort to Section 49(2) of the Act and move such a 'No Confidence Motion'. It is the restrictions envisaged in the Second and Third Provisos of Section 49(1) of the Act which are sought to be overridden by the non obstante Clause at the beginning of the Section 49 (2) of the Act. (X) If a motion for No-Confidence even though moved under Section 49(2) of the Act does not contain specific allegations against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha of a Grama Panchayat, such a motion will fall under Section 49(1) and shall be subject to the restriction prescribed under Section 49(1) of the Act and can be considered by the Members under Section 49(1) of the Act. 38. 38. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid interpretation can be given to Section 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act, making a harmonious reading of the two sub-sections of Section 49, providing for a democratic way out for the Members for expressing their 'No Confidence' in the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha and with the votes of the 2/3rd of the total number of Members, they can resort to such democratic process of expressing their 'No Confidence' and removing the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha from their Office under Section 49 of the Act. 39. Section 49 of the Act does not envisage any inquiry into the allegations either by the Members of the Grama Panchayat or by the Government Authority like the Assistant Commissioner who is empowered to convene the meeting as per Rules of 1994. The Guidelines laid down in the Circular dated 07/02/2018 envisaging a Factual Report from the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat as assigned to him by the Assistant Commissioner is also to verify whether the motion moved under Section 49(2) of the Act falls within the parameters of Section 49(2) of the Act or not and as to whether Members have made specific allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption, etc. against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha or not for the Assistant Commissioner to decide as to whether the Meeting of all the Members of the Grama Panchayat for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' has to be convened or not or whether such 'No Confidence Motion' can be put for consideration as motion under Section 49(1) of the Act, subject to restrictions provided under Section 49(1) of the Act. 40. The basic or cursory inquiry into the contents of Notice or Motion of the one half of the Members for giving the Factual Report by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat does not envisage any Bi-parte inquiry or the kind of inquiry, as is envisaged in Section 43-A or Section 48 of the Act quoted above. 40. The basic or cursory inquiry into the contents of Notice or Motion of the one half of the Members for giving the Factual Report by the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat does not envisage any Bi-parte inquiry or the kind of inquiry, as is envisaged in Section 43-A or Section 48 of the Act quoted above. Such inquiry is only to submit the Factual Report as to whether the motion moved by the Members falls within the parameters of Section 49(1) or 49(2) of the Act and once such an opinion that it does so fall within the scope of Section 49(1) or 49(2) of the Act, is formed by the Assistant Commissioner, he has no option but to call the meeting of the Members of the Grama Panchayat, subject to the restrictions if motion falls under Section 49(1) of the Act and without such restrictions if motion falls under Section 49(2) of the Act. In such conduct of meeting of Members, even if the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha against whom such 'No Confidence Motion' is moved may try to explain his position and try to convince the Members not to pass such a 'No Confidence Motion' against him/her, it is for the concerned Members to take their decision in the matter and once the Assistant Commissioner puts the motion to vote and if 2/3rd of the majority of Members pass such 'No Confidence Motion', such elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha will be deemed to have been removed from the Office of the Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha forthwith. 41. The democratic way of removing the elected persons from the Office by expression of 'No Confidence' in them is the essential feature of any democracy and therefore such elected persons cannot seek a permanent or a tenure fixation to their elected Offices, even if the majority of the Members electing them to that office, lose their confidence in them and intend to remove them just by count of heads or votes. The majority rule or the Numbers game is qui vive of the Democracy. 42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed such an opinion, discussing the various previous precedents in this regard referring to some of the elected Offices in Indian Polity and also elected Office Bearers of the Bar Councils as well as the Grama Panchayats in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary Vs. 42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed such an opinion, discussing the various previous precedents in this regard referring to some of the elected Offices in Indian Polity and also elected Office Bearers of the Bar Councils as well as the Grama Panchayats in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary Vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and others (2015) 8 SCC 1 and went on to the extent of holding that even if there is no express provision regarding expressing 'No Confidence', once the Co-operative Society is conferred with a constitutional status, it should rise to the constitutional aspirations as a democratic Institution and such a process of 'No Confidence' should be allowed to be carried on even in such Cooperative Societies also. It would be appropriate to quote Paragraphs 20 to 24 of the said judgment which also includes and cites the three previous Supreme Court judgments in different circumstances of this nature. "20. If a person has been selected to an office through democratic process, and when that person loses the confidence of the representatives who selected him, those representatives should necessarily have a democratic right to remove such an office-bearer in whom they do not have confidence, in case those institutions are viewed under the Constitution/statutes as democratic institutions. 21. In Bhanumati case (2010) 12 SCC 1 , at para 67, this Court elaborated on this principles: (SCC p.20) "67. Any head of a democratic institution must be prepared to face the test of confidence. Neither the democratically elected Prime Minister of the country nor the Chief Minister of a State is immune from such a test of confidence under the Rules of Procedure framed under Articles 118 and 208 of the Constitution. Both the Prime Minister of India and Chief Ministers of several States heading the Council of Ministers at the Center and in several States respectively have to adhere to the principles of collective responsibilities to their respective houses in accordance with Articles 75(3) and 164(2) of the Constitution". 22. In Pratap Chandra Mehta case (2011) 9 SCC 573 , at para 45, the principles has been discussed as follows: (SCC pp. 600-01) "45. 22. In Pratap Chandra Mehta case (2011) 9 SCC 573 , at para 45, the principles has been discussed as follows: (SCC pp. 600-01) "45. In the instant case, the election process as contemplated under the relevant laws is that the members of a State Bar Council are elected by the electorate of advocates on the rolls of the State Bar Council from amongst the electorate itself. The elected members then elect a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and the Treasurer of the State Bar Council as well as constitute various committees for carrying out different purposes under the provisions of the Advocates Act. In other words, the body which elects the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a State Bar Council always consists of members elected to that Council. The democratic principles would require that a person who attains the position of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman, as the case may be, could be removed by the same electorate or smaller body which elected them to that position by taking recourse to a 'no-confidence motion' and in accordance with the Rules. The body that elects a person to such a position would and ought to have the right to oust him/her from that post, in the event the majority members of the body do not support the said person at that time. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is taken that this may not be generally true, the provisions of Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules make it clear, beyond doubt, that a 'no-confidence motion' can be brought against the elected Chairman provided the conditions stated in the said Rules are satisfied". 23. In Usha Bharti case also (2014) 7 SCC 663 , this Court eloquently held at para 53 as follows: (SCC p. 693) "53. In our opinion, the provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives'. 24. No doubt, in the cases referred to above, the respective Acts contained a provision regarding no confidence. What about a situation where there is no express provision regarding no confidence? Once the cooperative society is conferred a constitutional status, it should rise to the constitutional aspirations as a democratic institution. 24. No doubt, in the cases referred to above, the respective Acts contained a provision regarding no confidence. What about a situation where there is no express provision regarding no confidence? Once the cooperative society is conferred a constitutional status, it should rise to the constitutional aspirations as a democratic institution. So, it is for the respective legislative bodies to ensure that here is democratic functioning. When the Constitution is eloquent, the laws made thereunder cannot be silent. If the statues is silent or imprecise on the requirements under the Constitution, it is for the court to read the constitutional mandate into the provisions concerned and declare it accordingly. Article 243-ZT has given a period of one year to frame/reframe the statues in consonance with Part-IX-B and thereafter i.e., with effect from 12-1-2013, those provisions which are inconsistent with Part IX-B, cease to operate." 43. As noted above, in all the writ petitions which are being disposed of by this common judgment, except two writ petitions, in which the meetings of Grama Panchayats could not be held, the Resolution for 'No Confidence' against the elected Adhyaksha/ Upadhyaksha has been carried out by a majority of 2/3rd or more of the Members of the concerned Grama Panchayat. Since these motions were moved and meetings were held prior to 07/02/2018 before the aforesaid Circular was issued by the Government. There is no doubt that the said Circular could not have been given a retrospective effect, therefore the Factual Report as per Circular dated 07/02/2018 about the nature of the allegations could not have been given in these cases but nonetheless the motions so moved under Section 49(2) of the Act on the allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority or misappropriation of funds or corruption etc. cannot be held to be void or non est, because, as noted above, the words 'specific allegation' will have to be read contextually and in the absence of even specific allegations, such No Confidence Motions or Resolutions though moved under Section 49(2) of the Act can be construed as the Resolutions moved and passed under Section 49(1) of the Act. Such democratic process having been carried out and the required majority number of Members having already passed 'No Confidence Motion' against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, who are the petitioners before this Court, such Resolutions and motions cannot be quashed by this Court. 44. Such democratic process having been carried out and the required majority number of Members having already passed 'No Confidence Motion' against the elected Adhyaksha/Upadhyaksha, who are the petitioners before this Court, such Resolutions and motions cannot be quashed by this Court. 44. The Court cannot go into the nature of allegations at all under Section 49(2) of the Act and even if the allegations are not specific, the process of 'No Confidence' will be deemed to be moved and carried out under Section 49(1) of the Act and the same cannot be said to be suffering from a fatal vice, if Section 49 (1) and 49 (2) of the Act are harmoniously read in a conjoint manner and not in water tight compartments. There is no case set up by the petitioners that the 'No Confidence Motion', in the present case do not meet the restrictions under Section 49(1) of the Act. 45. This Court therefore cannot interfere with the impugned motions or Notices of meetings and the Resolutions passed in such meetings against the elected Adhyakshas/Upadhyakshas in the present writ petitions and the writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be disposed of without any interference by this Court. 46. The present writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Accordingly, the IAs filed by some of the Members seeking impleadment are also rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. 47. For the two writ petitions, viz. W.P. No. 3434/2018 and W.P.No.3435/2018, in which the meeting could not be held in terms of the ex-parte interim orders granted by this Court, staying the operation of the notices of the Assistant Commissioner himself, those writ petitions are also disposed of and by vacating the said ad-interim orders and now allowing the Grama Panchayats to go ahead with the meetings to be notified afresh by the Assistant Commissioner in accordance with the Circular dated 07/02/2018 in accordance with the aforesaid interpretation given by this Court. 48. For the writ petitions in which notice for 'No Confidence Motion'(NCM) is moved after 07/02/2018 also, the Assistant Commissioner shall proceed further in the manner indicated above. 49. With these observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.