JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The unsuccessful President before the learned Single Judge filed the present intra Court appeal against the order dated 09.01.2019 made in W.P.No.202790/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner shall convene the fresh meeting of the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat within an outer limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order for considering the No-Confidence Motion dated 23.06.2018, Annexure-B moved by respondent Nos.6 to 24 against the petitioner by keeping in mind the observations made therein. I. FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge that she was elected as Adhyaksha of Nirna Grama Panchayat on 20.07.2015 and has assumed the charge on the same day. Subsequently, on 23.06.2018, respondent Ns.6 to 24 filed requisition/representation before the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting of Grama Panchayat for the purpose of moving No Confidence Motion. The said requisition was received by the 3rd respondent on the same day. It is further case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not given a copy of requisition made by respondent Nos.6 to 24. Therefore, the petitioner applied the copy of the same to the 3rd respondent by filing application on 06.08.2018. After receipt of the said requisition, though the members have made reckless allegations against the petitioner, as on today no complaint filed against her. It is further contended that since respondent Nos.6 to 24 are supported by a National Political party and the present petitioner is a politically neutral person, as such, respondent Nos.6 to 24 with an ill-intention of removal of petitioner approached the 3rd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that based on the requisition made by respondent Nos.6 to 24, the 3rd respondent has forwarded to the 4th respondent to enquire regarding the allegations made by the members and to submit report. The 4th respondent-Executive Officer without giving notice and without providing an opportunity, has submitted the adverse report colluding with respondent Nos.6 to 24 behind the back of the petitioner. The 4th respondent ought to have enquired regarding payment of cheques in the names of the employees of the panchayat because he is the only custodian and competent official to issue the cheques in the name of the employees. The President is only a joint signatory. The 4th respondent ought to have enquired regarding payment of cheques in the names of the employees of the panchayat because he is the only custodian and competent official to issue the cheques in the name of the employees. The President is only a joint signatory. As such, she does not know about the transactions. The 4th respondent has submitted the report contrary to the circular dated 07.02.2018 issued by RDPR and has not submitted the report well within the stipulated time. As per the adverse report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has fixed the meeting of no confidence on 23.08.2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the office of the 5th respondent-Nirna Grama Panchayat under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and in contravention of Rule 3(1) and (2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyakshya and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Rules' for short), should submit their written notice of intention to make the motion for no confidence in Form No.1. It is further submitted that the requirement of Rule 3(1) is mandatory in nature. Admittedly, no application is presented in Form No.1 as prescribed under the Rules. The 3rd respondent based on the representation has called for meeting as per Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules. Even though the representations alleged to have been made by the respondent Nos.6 to 24, does not satisfy the conditions stipulated in Section 49(2) of the Act. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge and sought following relief’s: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned notice in No.Sam/Kam/Chunavane/Cr-06/2018-19/1802 dated 06.08.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, the copy of which has been produced at Annexure-A. (b) Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, in the ends of justice and equity. II. ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 3. II. ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 3. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Roopa vs. The State of Karnataka and Others (DD 28.09.2018) (Single Judge) made in W.P.No.32295/2018 dismissed the writ petition and directed the 3rd respondent shall convene fresh meeting of respondent-Grama panchayat for consideration of no-confidence motion. Hence, the present appeal. III. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri R.S. Sidhapurkar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is against the mandatory provisions of Rules 3(1)(2) of 1994 Rules. He would further contend that the learned Single Judge having held that no confidence motion moved against the petitioner by respondent Nos.6 to 24 is under Section 49(2) of the Act, and as such, 1994 Rules would be inapplicable. The learned Single Judge ought to have allowed writ petition instead of dismissing the same. He would further contend that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka and Others made in W.A.Nos.844/2018 and connected matters (DD 12.10.2018) held that no confidence motion moved under Section 49(2) of the Act, 1994 Rules is not applicable. He would further contend that in view of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the procedure for meeting of the Grama Panchayat shall be as prescribed. Admittedly, there is no procedure prescribed to invoke provisions of sub-section 2 of Section-49 of the Act. The very procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner to move no confidence motion invoking Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules is invalid. The learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition instead of dismissing the same. Therefore, sought to allow the present appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 24/members of Grama Panchayat sought to justify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and contend that in view of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act, is a substantive law to remove the Adhyakshya or Upadhyaksha in the meeting, on the basis of the allegations made. He would further contend that under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52 of the Act includes both general meeting and special meeting can be called to remove the President as the members have power to elect the President should have power to remove in view of provisions of the Section 10 of General Clauses Act. He would further contend that under Section 57 of the Act, no proceedings held by the majority of the Grama Panchayat members can be disqualified. He would further contend that it is the duty of the Court to provide statute with the meaning based on the constitutional prescription, aspirations and ideals. In the absence of any prescription, it is the duty of the Court to provide statute with meaning as per the Constitution. 7. He would further contend that though before the Division Bench the State Government produced a final notification dated 21.08.2018 with regard to promulgation of Rules, the same was not brought into regular Rules. Therefore, he would further contend that Government can not be allowed with their sweet time to frame the rules, till rules are framed this Court has to permit the parties to move under sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act, which is substantive law to remove Adhyakshya or Upadhyaksha in the meeting on the basis of the allegations made out and this Court can direct the State Government to expedite the draft rules into regular rules. 8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (1) Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary reported in, (2015) 8 SCC 1 ; (2) Vishaka & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in, (1997) AIR SC 3011; (3) Aswini Kumar Ghosh and Ors. vs. Arabinda Bose and Ors. reported in, (1952) AIR SC 369; (4) Geeta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in, (2010) 13 SCC 678 . Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 9. vs. Arabinda Bose and Ors. reported in, (1952) AIR SC 369; (4) Geeta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in, (2010) 13 SCC 678 . Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court dated 05.02.2019 filed affidavit of M.K. Aiyappa, Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in para-3 & 5 of the affidavit has specifically stated and taken a specific contention that the State Government has already published the Rules called Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyakshya and Upadhyakshya of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2018' for short), dated 21.08.2018, which was published in the official gazette on 04.10.2018, subsequent to said publication, this Court in the case of Lakshmamma stated supra has considered the said notification under Amendment Rules 2018. IV. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the appellant has made out case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Section 4 of High Court Act? (2) Whether the motion moved under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act can invoke the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994? 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. V. CONSIDERATION: 12. It is undisputed fact that the present appellant came to be elected as member of the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat on 05.06.2015 and she was elected as Adhyakshya of the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat on 20.07.2015. It is also not in dispute that on 23.06.2018 members of the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat i.e. respondent Nos.6 to 24 made a representation/requisition before the 3rd respondent18 Assistant Commissioner to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner received report from the Executive Officer-respondent No.4. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice on 06.08.2018 exercising powers under Rules 3(2) of Rules 1994, fixing the date of meeting as 23.08.2018. The Assistant Commissioner received report from the Executive Officer-respondent No.4. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice on 06.08.2018 exercising powers under Rules 3(2) of Rules 1994, fixing the date of meeting as 23.08.2018. That was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.202790/2018, the learned Single Judge issued notice and not granted any interim order that was the subject matter of Writ Appeal in W.A.No.200609/2018. The writ appeal came to be dismissed. The Division Bench extended interim order for a period of four weeks and subsequently, learned Single Judge extended the interim order till disposal of writ petition from time to time. 13. It is relevant to state at this stage that before the learned Single Judge respondent Nos.7 to 14 and 16 to 24, have not filed statement of objections, but learned counsel for the members of the grama panchayat fairly submitted that writ petition may be allowed reserving liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by submitting fresh no-confidence motion. Learned Single Judge though mentioned in para-5 of the impugned order, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition mainly relying on the judgment in the case of Smt. Roopa vs. The State of Karnataka and Others [DD 28.09.2018] made in W.P.No.32295/2018. The material also clearly depicts that the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that in the light of the aforestated discussion, when the facts on hand and the cause of writ petition are examined, it would disclose that no confidence motion moved against the petitioner by respondent Nos.6 to 24 is under Section 49(2) of the Act and as such 1994 Rules would be inapplicable and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. VI. AMENDMENT RULES 2018: 14. VI. AMENDMENT RULES 2018: 14. In pursuance of the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Revenue Department, with the assistance of Court Officer, we are able to lay our hands on the official Gazette from the Library, wherein it clearly depicts that, motion of no confidence Rules 2018 came into force on 04.10.2018 in the official Gazette at Part- IV-A in Page 5735, which reads as under: Notification Whereas the draft rules of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (moving of no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha and Upadhayaksha of the Grama Panchayaths) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 dated 21.06.2018 was published in part-IV-A of Karnataka Gazette on 21.06.2018 as required under Section-49 read with Section 311 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (Act No.14 of Karnataka Act 1993), inviting objections and suggestions to the said draft from persons likely to be affected thereto within 30 days of the publication in the official gazette. And, whereas the said gazette notification was made available to the public on 21.06.2018 And, whereas, no objections or suggestions have been received by the State Government in respect of the said draft. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section-49 read with Section 311 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (Act No.14 of Karnataka Act 1993), the Karnataka Government hereby makes the following rules namely,- Rules 1. Title and Commencement,- (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (moving of no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha and Upadhayaksha of the Grama Panchayah) (Amendment) Rules, 2018. 2. These rules will come into effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Amendment to Rule 1,- In the sub rule(1) for the words "Panchayat Raj" the words "Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj" shall be substituted in respect of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj (moving of no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 1994. 3. Amendment to Rule 3,- In rule 3 of main rules (i) In sub-rule (1),- (a) For the words "not less than one third" the words "not less than that prescribed under section 49(1)" shall be substituted. 3. Amendment to Rule 3,- In rule 3 of main rules (i) In sub-rule (1),- (a) For the words "not less than one third" the words "not less than that prescribed under section 49(1)" shall be substituted. (b) After the words "shall be submitted in person" the words "in respect of specific charges relating to those in the list as specified in sub-section(2) of section 49, shall be submitted in person along with the notice and written evidence and proof" shall be inserted. (ii) In sub-rule (2),- (c) After the words "shall be given to those members" the words "the Assistant Commissioner shall get a report from the Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayath within seven days and ensure the allegations made are in the appended notice. Thereafter the date of meeting shall be fixed and this date for no reason shall be extended beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of notice for no confidence motion form the members" shall be inserted. VII. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(2) OF THE ACT: 15. In view of the controversy between the parties, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Section 49(1) and (2) of the Act which reads as under: 49. VII. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(2) OF THE ACT: 15. In view of the controversy between the parties, it is relevant to refer the provisions of Section 49(1) and (2) of the Act which reads as under: 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 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] 16. A careful reading of the provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of Section 49 of the Act, makes it clear that if motion moved under Section 49(1) of the Act, expressing want of no confidence in him/her 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. The same was substituted as 'one-third' by Act No.44 of 2015 w.e.f. 25.02.2016. The second proviso deals with no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall not be moved within the first thirty months from the date of his election by Act 44 of 2015 w.e.f. 25.02.2016. The third proviso also depicts that where as 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. The same was substituted by Act 45 of 2015 w.e.f. 25.02.2016. 17. The sub-section 2 of Section 49 came to be inserted by Act 44 of 2015 w.e.f. 25.02.2016, which depicts that 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. 18. In view of the aforesaid provisions of subsections 1 and 2 of Section 49 of the Act, it is clear that if motion is moved under Section 49(1) of the Act, Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules can be invoked, when the legislatures thought fit to insert sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act w.e.f. 25.02.2016, ought to have promulgated the Rules to that effect. When the matter was before the learned Single Judge the Rules framed by the State Government has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. When we enquired repeatedly with force we are able to get the affidavit from the Secretary of the Government, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department, filed affidavit today in the open Court. When the matter was before the learned Single Judge the Rules framed by the State Government has not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. When we enquired repeatedly with force we are able to get the affidavit from the Secretary of the Government, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department, filed affidavit today in the open Court. It discloses that the publication of the Rules 2018 made after inviting objections and suggestions within 30 days since no objections or suggestions have been received by the State, ultimately finalized the Rules on 21.08.2018 came to be published in the official gazette on 04.10.2018. 19. By a careful reading of amendment to Rule 3,- In rule 3 of main rules clearly depicts that- (i) In sub-rule (1),- (a) For the words "not less than one third" the words "not less than that prescribed under section 49(1)" shall be substituted. (b) After the words "shall be submitted in person" the words "in respect of specific charges relating to those in the list as specified in sub-section(2) of section 49, shall be submitted in person along with the notice and written evidence and proof" shall be inserted. (ii) In sub-rule (2),- After the words "shall be given to those members" the words "the Assistant Commissioner shall get a report from the Executive Officer of the concerned Taluk Panchayath within seven days and ensure the allegations made are in the appended notice. Thereafter the date of meeting shall be fixed and this date for no reason shall be extended beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of notice for no confidence motion form the members" shall be inserted. 20. The learned Single Judge though has not agreed with the contentions raised by the petitioner that no confidence motion moved was under Section 49(1) of the Act, but specifically held that no confidence motion moved under sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act. The provisions of 1994 Rules would be inapplicable. Once the learned Single Judge held that 1994 Rules not applicable, then learned Single Judge ought to have noticed the fact the present no confidence motion moved against the petitioner was only under rules 3(2) of 1994 Rules. The provisions of 1994 Rules would be inapplicable. Once the learned Single Judge held that 1994 Rules not applicable, then learned Single Judge ought to have noticed the fact the present no confidence motion moved against the petitioner was only under rules 3(2) of 1994 Rules. If that is so, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition holding the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to proceed with no confidence motion invoking provisions of Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules. 21. It is also noticed that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.01.2019 after the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka and others made in W.A.Nos.844/2018 and connected matters dated 12.10.2018. The Co-ordinate Bench while considering the provisions of Section 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act, has proceeded to hold at paragraphs 43, 46 and 47, which reads as under: 43. By virtue of August 2018 Amendment (supra), these Rules are made applicable even to the motions moved under subsection (2) in which 'specific allegations' are a pre-requisite. By their very nature, a debate becomes inevitable on such motions under sub-section (2). Unless and until a comprehensive set of Rules as applicable to these motions is promulgated, this newly added sub-section (2) will continue to remain unworkable. The Government Circular No.RDP 887 GPA 2017 dated 07.02.2018, being only of executive instructions, cannot be a substitute for the Rules. 46. Most of the motions of no-confidence, as involved in the present cases, have already been put to the floor of the concerned Houses and, it is pointed out that most of such motions have been adopted. Such motions of no-confidence have been found by the learned Single Judge to be conforming to all the requirements of subsection (1) of Section 49. No cogent and convincing reason has been placed before us in any of these matters that the motion of noconfidence is not in conformity with the other requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 49. That being the position, the resolutions adopted on such motions deserve to be taken to their logical conclusion. No cogent and convincing reason has been placed before us in any of these matters that the motion of noconfidence is not in conformity with the other requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 49. That being the position, the resolutions adopted on such motions deserve to be taken to their logical conclusion. In the pending writ petitions, of course, the validity of the notice of motion per sub-section (1) of Section 49 may be examined, if any question in that regard is raised and to this extent, we would leave the matter open for examination in the pending writ petitions. 47. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the view that these intra-court appeals deserve to be dismissed and the orders impugned, as passed by the learned Single Judge, deserve to be upheld except the observations occurring in paragraph 37(V) of the order dated 28.02.2018, where the learned Single Judge has observed that the motion of no-confidence under subsection (2) of Section 49 would remain subject to mode and method for its consideration as per sub-section (1). Such mode and method would only relate to the requirement of the number of members for moving the motion and for adopting the resolution on that basis. However, the procedure and method for consideration of the motion under sub-section (2) of Section 49 shall have to be provided by separately promulgated Rules and any such motion under sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 cannot be proceeded under the Rules of 1994, even as amended by the notification dated 21.08.2018 22. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court stated supra has held that a careful reading of aforesaid paragraphs makes it clear that though an attempt made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that by virtue of August 2018 Amendment Rules are made applicable even to the motions moved under sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act, in which 'specific allegations' are a pre-requisite. By their very nature, a debate becomes inevitable on such motions under subsection (2). Unless and until a comprehensive set of Rules as applicable to these motions is promulgated, this newly added sub-section (2) will continue to remain unworkable. The Government Circular No.RDP 887 GPA 2017 dated 07.02.2018, being only of executive instructions, cannot be a substitute for the Rules. By their very nature, a debate becomes inevitable on such motions under subsection (2). Unless and until a comprehensive set of Rules as applicable to these motions is promulgated, this newly added sub-section (2) will continue to remain unworkable. The Government Circular No.RDP 887 GPA 2017 dated 07.02.2018, being only of executive instructions, cannot be a substitute for the Rules. The Division Bench also clarified that however, the procedure and method for consideration of the motion under sub-section 2 of Section 49 shall have to be provided by separately promulgated Rules and any such motion under subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 cannot be proceeded under the Rules of 1994, even as amended by the notification dated 21.08.2018. 23. In view of the aforesaid observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that an attempt is made by the State Government by filing a false affidavit before this Court that the Rules was published in the official gazette on 04.10.2018 and subsequently the Division Bench of this Court passed the orders. As rightly pointed out by Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 24 that the said writ appeal was heard finally on 18.09.2018 and reserved for judgment. There was no occasion for the State to bring it to the notice of this Court about the publication of amendment Rules on 04.10.2018 reads as under: "18.09.2018 order in W.A.No.844/2018 and connected matters: Learned Additional Advocate General has filed another memo placing on record the draft notification dated 16.05.2018 and final notification dated 21.08.2018 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj (Moving of No-Confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayath) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 along with the translated copies thereof. Learned counsel Shri P.P.Hegde has also furnished another list of citations and has made further submissions with permission of the Court. Arguments concluded. Judgment remains reserved." and the Co-ordinate Bench pronounced the judgment on 12.10.2018, which clearly indicates that the State Government is not conducting cases in due diligence and they cannot file such false affidavit before the Court and it clearly depicts that there is no seriousness on the part of the State Government. 24. Arguments concluded. Judgment remains reserved." and the Co-ordinate Bench pronounced the judgment on 12.10.2018, which clearly indicates that the State Government is not conducting cases in due diligence and they cannot file such false affidavit before the Court and it clearly depicts that there is no seriousness on the part of the State Government. 24. When specific questions posed to the learned Additional Government Advocate by an order of this Court dated 05.02.2019, after amendment of Rules 2018 was published in the official gazette on 04.10.2018 or not? If it was published, why under Secretary has issued the directions to the Assistant Commissioners (Revenue) by letters dated 25.01.2019 giving certain clarifications. Very strangely, the present affidavit filed by the Under Secretary dated 07.02.2019 states that in furtherance of order passed by this Court in W.A.No.844/2018 and connected matters with a letter dated 25.01.2019 was sent to all the Assistant Commissioners which reflects the direction issued by this Court, this is again misleading, when the Rules published in official gazette, there was no need to issue such letters to the Assistant Commissioners thereby misleading the members, the Adhyakshya and the Upadhyakshya of Grama Panchayats. 25. With due respect to the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment he has proceeded to rely upon judgment in the case of Smt. Roopa stated supra, dated 28.09.2018 even though the learned Single Judge also referred to Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma stated supra, while he proceeded to reject the writ petition allowing the Assistant Commissioner to invoke Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the very amended provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act and contrary to the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma stated supra. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 26. Though Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 24 has taken pains to convince this Court to direct the State Government to finalize the Rules at the earliest relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vipulbhai and Vishaka stated supra. 26. Though Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 24 has taken pains to convince this Court to direct the State Government to finalize the Rules at the earliest relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vipulbhai and Vishaka stated supra. In view of the publication of The Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, in the present case there is no need to direct the State Government to finalize Rules. 27. In So far as contention of Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, in the case of Geeta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others stated surpa, at para-38 which reads as under: "38. Interpretation of non obstante clauses has come up for consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions. In Aswini Kumar ghose v. Arabinda Bose a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Patanjali Sastri C.J. observed that: 27. ..the non obstante clause can reasonably be read as overriding anything contained' in any relevant existing law which is inconsistent with thenew enactment.' 27. .. the enacting part of a statute must, where it is clear, be taken to control the non obstante clause where both cannot be read harmoniously." 28. A careful reading of said judgment, we agree with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the said case. In view of the publication of The Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, published in the official gazette dated 04.10.2018, there is no need to interpret provision of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma stated supra, already held that the said provisions is valid. As we are not dealing with the validity of the amendment Rules 2018. Therefore, we are resisting to observe anything about validity of the Rules 2018. It is left open to the concerned aggrieved parties to challenge the said Amendment Rules 2018 in appropriate case. 29. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma, stated supra, was the subject matter in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.28865-28870/2018. It is left open to the concerned aggrieved parties to challenge the said Amendment Rules 2018 in appropriate case. 29. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma, stated supra, was the subject matter in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.28865-28870/2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the material on record by the order dated 31.10.2018 dismissed the SLA Nos.28865- 28870/2018. VIII. CONCLUSION: 30. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised in the present appeal has to be answered in the affirmative holding that the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961. Accordingly, point No.2 raised in the present appeal has to be answered in the negative holding that the motion moved under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Karnataka grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, cannot be invoked. 31. In view of the provisions of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 49 of the Act, the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 published in Official Gazette on 04.10.2018, makes it clear that requisition/motion moved under sub-section 1 of the Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, are applicable and the procedure as contemplated under Section 49 (1) of the Act and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 shall have to be followed. If any motion is moved by the members of the grama panchayat under sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act, 1993, the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, applicable and the procedure as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Act and Amendment Rules 2018 shall have to be followed. IX. DECISION: 32. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. IX. DECISION: 32. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2019 made in W.P.No.202790/2018 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the notice issued Annexure-A(to the writ petition) invoking the provisions of Rule 3(2) The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, fixing the meeting is totally without jurisdiction and is also quashed. 33. However, it is needless to observe, that it is always open for the members of the 5th respondent- Grama Panchayat to move afresh in accordance with law. 34. The valuable assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and learned Additional Government Advocate is appreciated and placed on record.