JUDGMENT : By impugned order dated 1st February 2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant. The present appellant was elected on 15th July 2015 as the President (Adhyaksha) of a Grama Panchayat. A motion was moved under subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the said Act of 1993’) in December 2018. It is pointed out in the writ petition filed by the present appellant that the notice under subsection (2) of Section 49 was challenged by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on 17th January 2019 by setting aside the impugned notice. Thereafter, a fresh motion was moved by 18 members on 21st January 2019 by invoking subsection (1) of Section 49 of the said Act of 1993. Initially, the present appellant moved the Assistant Commissioner for the relief of withdrawal of the notice dated 21st January 2019. On 4th February 2019, the motion was moved and the appellant was removed from the post of the President. Thereafter, a notice for election of a new President was issued. The present appellant filed a fresh writ petition challenging the notice dated 4th February 2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner to consider the second no confidence motion. In the writ petition, there was also a prayer for quashing the notice dated 21st January 2019 by which subsection (1) of Section 49 was invoked by 18 members. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that after the notice invoking subsection (2) of Section 49 failed, there could not have been a notice issued under subsection (1) of Section 49. The second submission is that if no confidence motion by invoking subsection (1) of Section 49 is allowed to be moved after the failure of a motion taken out by invoking subsection (2) of Section 49, subsection (2) of Section 49 will become redundant. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 reads thus : “49. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Section 49 of the said Act of 1993 reads thus : “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 resolution 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 resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution 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 resolution: Provided further that no resolution 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 resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution 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 subsection (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.” 4. On a conjoint reading of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Section 49, it is apparent that for moving a motion under subsection (1) of Section 49, it is not necessary to make allegations of misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of the panchayat or misappropriation of funds of the panchayat. Subsection (1) is applicable when two thirds of the members want to express lack of confidence in the President or Vice-President, as the case may be. 5. Subsection (1) is applicable when two thirds of the members want to express lack of confidence in the President or Vice-President, as the case may be. 5. By virtue of second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 49, no confidence motion under subsection (1) expressing want of confidence in the President or Vice President cannot be moved within the first thirty months from the dates of their respective election. Subsection (1) of Section 49 applies when two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat want to express want of confidence either in the President or the VicePresident. There is a further embargo as far as no confidence motion under subsection (1) of Section 49 is concerned in the form of third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 49. It provides that once a no confidence motion moved under subsection (1) of Section 49 is negatived by Grama Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same President or Vice President shall not be moved for a period of within two years from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat on the earlier motion. Perusal of subsection (2) of Section 49 shows that the embargo under the second and third provisos to subsection (1) of Section 49 will have no application to a notice of no confidence under subsection (2) of Section 49. The reason is that, subsection (2) of Section 49 starts with non-obstante clause which specifically overrides subsection (1). This sounds logical as a motion under subsection (2) can be moved on the basis of misconduct mentioned therein. 6. In a case where a motion of no confidence issued by invoking subsection (2) of Section 49 fails, there is no embargo on taking out a motion under subsection (1) of Section 49. There is no such prohibition under the said Act of 1993. The bar created by the third proviso to subsection (1) is not applicable in such a case. The bar is applicable only when a notice under subsection (1) of section 49 fails and second notice is moved again under subsection (1). It is not the case of the appellant that the said bar is applicable. We do not see how subsection (2) of Section 49 becomes redundant. The bar is applicable only when a notice under subsection (1) of section 49 fails and second notice is moved again under subsection (1). It is not the case of the appellant that the said bar is applicable. We do not see how subsection (2) of Section 49 becomes redundant. In a given case after failure of a motion of no confidence taken out under subsection (1) of Section 49, still there can be a motion taken out under subsection (2) of Section 49 in view of non-obstante clause in subsection (2) of Section 49. To such a motion, embargo created by third proviso to subsection (1) will not apply as it is applied only to the second motion taken out under subsection (1). 7. Therefore, we do not see any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he held that there is no bar to take out notice of no confidence under subsection (1) of Section 49 after the notice issued under subsection (2) of Section 49 has failed. We find absolutely no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending application stands disposed of.