Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 957 (KAR)

Mohini v. Shetty VS State Of Karnataka And Others

2020-06-03

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner claiming to be an elected member of the Venuru Gram Panchayath and holding the post of President (Adyaksha) for respondent No.3 Gram Panchayath has filed this present petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 19.05.2020 issued by respondent No.2 for conducting the meeting on 09.06.2020 in order to consider the motion of No Confidence moved against the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A to the writ petition. Caveats have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20 and Sri.Nishit Kumar Shetty has entered appearance on their behalf. 2. Sri. M.V. Ramesh Jois, AGA appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In view of the certain admitted facts which will be dealt with later on, I am of the considered opinion that there is no requirement to issue notice to the other respondents. 3. It is an admitted fact that 17 members of the Gram Panchayath have moved No Confidence as regards the petitioner which has been considered by respondent No.2 and a notice in terms of Annexure-A has been issued on 19.05.2020 calling for a meeting on 09.06.2020 to consider the said motion at 11.30 a.m. in the office of the respondent No.3. 4. In terms of the circular issued by the first respondent dated 07.02.2018, the motion for No confidence is to be moved under Section 49 by not less than 50% of the total strength of the Gram Panchayath members by issuing notice at least 10 days in advance. The Assistant Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.2 of the Puttur Sub Division would consider the said representation/motion and call for a meeting. 5. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the present No confidence motion is being moved during the pandemic only to achieve the malafide motives and intentions of the said persons moving the No confidence motion. He further submits that during the pandemic, such motion ought not to be moved and the petitioner is to be allowed to function as Adyaksha so as to take care of the needs of the panchayath. Apart therefrom, he submits that the requirement of the circular dated 07.02.2018 has not been followed in its true spirit. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent Nos. Apart therefrom, he submits that the requirement of the circular dated 07.02.2018 has not been followed in its true spirit. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20 would contend that 17 members of the Gram Panchayath have moved the No confidence motion. The Gram Panchayath consisting of 24 members thus excluding the petitioner only 6 other members have not moved the No confidence motion. 17 members moving the motion not only constitute 50% of the total strength of the Gram Panchayath but infact constitute two-thirds of the members who are required to vote in favour of the No confidence motion in terms of Section 49 of the Gram Panchayath Act. 7. Heard Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel appearing for caveat respondent Nos. 4, 11 and 20. Perused the documents. 8. It is an admitted fact that the Panchayath consists of 24 members out of which 17 members have moved No confidence motion and it is those members who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 24 in these proceedings. With such an admitted fact that the number of members moving the motion for no confidence exceeding 50% as required under the Circular dated 07.2.2018 and the second respondent having acted in accordance with law and the requirements under Section 49 of the Gram Panchayath Act as also the aforementioned Circular, there are no legal grounds available to the petitioner to question issuance of notice calling for meeting i.e. Annexure-A. 9. The contention of Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel appearing for petitioner that such a motion could not have been moved during pandemic is not a sustainable argument and not tenable in law. There are no legal grounds which could be considered by this Court in respect of the above writ petition in view of the fact that all the requirements under law and Circular are followed. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.