JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 & 2, learned Counsel Mr. B.J.Somayaji for respondent No.3 and the learned Counsel for caveator respondents 4 to 17. 2. Petitioner claims to be the President of Chowdenahalli Grama Panchayat, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District, and is calling in question the resolution passing the Motion of No Confidence dated 27.04.2019 and produced as Annexure-A. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was elected as the member of the Panchayat in the elections held on 29.05.2015. Thereafter, election to the post of President of the Grama Pancahyat was held on 28.07.2015 and the petitioner successfully contested to the post of President of the Panchayat and was declared elected as the President of the Panchayat. That the petitioner has continuously strived for the betterment of the Panchayat. That some of the members out of political vengeance made false allegations and moved a motion for expressing no confidence in the petitioner. The said representation was submitted to the competent authority on 17.02.2018. On the said proposed motion, respondent No.2 Competent Authority issued notice dated 05.03.2018 calling for a meeting on 16.03.2018. The said notice was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.45987/2018 c/w W.P.No.11326/2018 which came to be disposed off by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019. In the said writ petition, petitioner had impugned the notice dated 05.03.2018. This Court after examining and appreciating the contentions of the parties, was pleased to quash the notice on the ground that the notice was not in compliance with Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Further while disposing of the writ petition, the co-ordinate bench having taken note of the observations made in the Writ Appeal as well as W.P.No.39213/2018, proceeded to hold and treat the motion moved as one under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and was pleased to quash the notice, and thereafter reserved liberty to the members to initiate the motion of no confidence in accordance with the provisions of Section 49(1) and further directed that if such a motion is moved, the same shall be conducted strictly in compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Rules. 4. 4. Pursuant to the liberty reserved, the respondents 4 to 14, once again moved another motion on 03.04.2019 for expressing no confidence. On receipt of the said proposed motion, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 10.04.2019 fixing the date for putting the proposed motion to vote on 27.04.2019. Thereafter, the meeting was held and the proposed motion was put to vote and the motion was unanimously passed by the Panchayat with all the 14 members present, voting in favour of the motion and against the petitioner, thereby expressing their no confidence. Thereafter, the instant writ petition came to be filed. 5. It was contended that when the subsequent motion of no-confidence was proposed and moved, the petitioner was not even a President and that the petitioner had taken charge only on 22.04.2019 pursuant to the order of the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.45987/2018. He would submit that admittedly the motion proposing no confidence was moved on 03.04.2019 and notice came to be issued on 10.04.2019 convening the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence on 27.04.2019. The instant writ petition is filed on 02.05.2019. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would place heavy reliance on Annexure-G in support of his contention that the petitioner was not the President on the date the motion was put to vote in compliance with the provisions under Section 3(1) of the Rules. He would contend that the petitioner has assumed office only on 22.04.2019 and hence, the charge having been handed to him on 22.04.2019, the Assistant Commissioner seriously erred in accepting the motion and also convening the meeting on 27.04.2019 and hence, he would contend that the very proposal is vitiated as the post of President was not occupied by anyone, much less the petitioner. 7. The answer to the aforesaid argument of the learned Counsel is found in the observation of the co-ordinate bench in paragraph 11 of the order passed in the earlier writ petition, wherein it is observed that all consequential action would automatically be set aside and "the petitioner is hereby restored to as Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat". The observation makes it apparently clear that the restoration of the petitioner to the post of Adhyaksha was with effect from the date the order came to be pronounced in the Open Court on 18.03.2019. 8. The observation makes it apparently clear that the restoration of the petitioner to the post of Adhyaksha was with effect from the date the order came to be pronounced in the Open Court on 18.03.2019. 8. The contention that the charge was not handed over or that the petitioner took charge only on 22.04.2019 is of no consequence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was required to be administered oath once again. That being the position, the question of the date of taking charge assuming any importance is a misconception and is of little relevance. What is to be noted is, that oath is administered only once and the restoration of the post to the petitioner is ordered by the co-ordinate bench on 18.03.2019. The word 'hereby' found in the order would clearly indicate that the restoration of office to the petitioner was with immediate effect. Hence, the contention that the proposal could not have been moved as there was no occupant in the office of Adhyaksha is unfounded and requires to be rejected. 9. Further, it is contended that the motion ought to be in terms of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, as the members who had proposed the motion had made several allegations and in the absence of an inquiry and report, question of the competent authority accepting the same and convening the meeting does not arise. 10. The said contention also requires to be negated in the light of the liberty reserved by the co-ordinate bench while allowing the petition preferred by the petitioner, wherein the Bench was pleased to observe as under: "Needless to state that the members are reserved liberty of initiating of their motion of no-confidence as per law under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for brevity). If such motion of no-confidence is moved, the Assistant Commissioner to ensure strict compliance with the Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules' for brevity)." 11. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that the provisions of Section 49(1) could not have been invoked without satisfying the provisions of Section 49(2). The said contention is not only misplaced but contrary to the law laid down by this Court. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that the provisions of Section 49(1) could not have been invoked without satisfying the provisions of Section 49(2). The said contention is not only misplaced but contrary to the law laid down by this Court. The scope and ambit of Section 49(1) and Section 49(2) are wholly different. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 49 foresees and is applicable in respect of the no-confidence motion simplicitor, unlike the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 49 which clearly provides for the motion of no-confidence on the basis of allegations. Hence, the contention that the authorities have to invoke Section 49(2) before invoking Section 49(1) is highly misplaced and in the event such argument is accepted, it would virtually amount to legislating and imposing a bar for invocation of Section 49(1) when there is no ambiguity in the light of the language employed in both the sub-sections. A bare reading of the said sub-sections would clearly demonstrate that they operate in different situation and in different occasions. In that view of the matter, the said contention requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 12. On perusal of the meeting notice dated 10.04.2019, it is seen that the motion is proposed and the motion is convened under Section 49(1). The option of invoking the provisions of either Section 49(2) or Section 49(1) is at the option of the proposers and it is not for the person facing the motion to command with regard to the provision or the manner in which the motion is to be moved. 13. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 49(2) are invocable is misplaced in view of the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in W.A.No.844/2018 and connected appeals, whereby the Division Bench has ruled that the said provision of Section 49(2) is inoperable or not workable pending framing of Rules. Until and unless the Rules are framed, the provisions of Section 49(2) cannot be invoked. 14. Further, the contention of the learned for the petitioner that the failure to enclose Form-1 along with the meeting notice is fatal also requires to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAM & ANOTHER VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR, (2009) ILR(Kar) 4078. 15. 14. Further, the contention of the learned for the petitioner that the failure to enclose Form-1 along with the meeting notice is fatal also requires to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAM & ANOTHER VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR, (2009) ILR(Kar) 4078. 15. In that view of the matter, petition being devoid of merits stands rejected. Interim order granted earlier stands dissolved. 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending applications does not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.