Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 744 (KAR)

Panchakshari v. State of Karnataka

2022-06-15

SIDDAPPA SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2022
ORDER : 1. The petitioner who was elected as a President of the Somapura Grama Panchayath has filed the present petition calling in question the validity of the resolution expressing "No Confidence" passed on 06.06.2022 against the petitioner. 2. The facts being that the requisition was made to the Assistant Commissioner to move Motion of "No Confidence" and the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-C has issued a notice fixing the date as 06.06.2022 at 11.00 a.m. for consideration of Motion of "No Confidence." 3. It is further submitted that the said Motion of "No Confidence" has been passed against the petitioner as is evident from the proceedings dated 06.06.2022 and the validity of such "No Confidence" motion is called in question in the present petition. 4. It is borne out from the records that at an earlier point of time, W.P. No. 10740/2022 (LB-RES) was filed challenging the validity of the notice dated 20.05.2022 at Annexure-C and writ petition came to be disposed of as per the order dated 01.06.2022. 5. The order of the learned Single Judge referred to above was called in question in W.A. No. 478/2022 by which time, the motion of "No Confidence" came to be passed and writ appeal was disposed of while observing as follows: "4. It is hereby provided that in case the petitioner/appellant prefers to challenge the resolution passed against him yesterday i.e., 06.06.2022 in the No Confidence Motion, the observations made by the writ Court or this Court may not come in his way and the Competent Forum may proceed to decide the same without being influenced in any manner in this regard." Accordingly, the present petition has been filed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the petitioner has principally contended as follows: (i) the requisition that is made under Section 49(1) must be with notice to the panchayat as well as the elected office bearer against whom the motion of "No Confidence" is moved. (ii) the requisition must be accompanied by copy of the proposed resolution. (iii) the Assistant Commissioner should complete the process within a period of thirty days. 7. He further contended that the procedure prescribed under Section 49 must be read in conjunction with the rules that are framed i.e., Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and upadyaksha of Gramapanchayat Rules, 1994 (for short "Rules"). (iii) the Assistant Commissioner should complete the process within a period of thirty days. 7. He further contended that the procedure prescribed under Section 49 must be read in conjunction with the rules that are framed i.e., Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, motion of No Confidence against the Adyaksha and upadyaksha of Gramapanchayat Rules, 1994 (for short "Rules"). Specific reference is made to the procedure under Rule 3 of the said Rules. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 1 and in specific observations made in para 51 wherein, it is observed that the procedures prescribed in any Act or Rules providing for removal of the elected member by way of a motion of "No Confidence" needs to be followed strictly. 8. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents would contend that the requisition made to the Assistant Commissioner as contemplated under Section 49(1) must be read in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Rules, which only provides for notice in Form-1 to be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner and there is no further requirement that such notice must be made also to the members in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. 9. It is further pointed out that the notice of the Assistant Commissioner fixing the date of meeting to consider the motion of "No Confidence" is 20.05.2022 and the whole process has been completed within a period of thirty days after following the procedure and accordingly, there is no infirmity. 10. Heard both the sides. 11. Insofar as the contention relating to non-accompanying of the proposed motion of "No Confidence" along with the requisition made to the Assistant Commissioner, it must be noticed that Section 49(1) needs to be read in conjunction with Rule 3 of the Rules and what is to be given to the Assistant Commissioner is only Form-1 and there is no further requirement in terms of the Rules. Accordingly, the contention that the notice is to be accompanied by the copy of the proposed resolution does not arise. A plain reading of Form-7 does not admit of such requirement. Accordingly, the contention that the notice is to be accompanied by the copy of the proposed resolution does not arise. A plain reading of Form-7 does not admit of such requirement. It is also to be noticed that the ten days notice is for the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules and cannot be construed to be a notice either to the elected office bearer who ought to be removed or the other members. 12. It is to be noticed that subsequently, after the requisition is made to the Assistant Commissioner, he does give notice to the members as is contemplated under Section 49 and it is only after such notice is given the meeting is fixed and thus, notice at Annexure-C is such notice that has been sent to the petitioner as well as other members. The receipt of notice by the petitioner as contended on 23rd May is not borne out from any record placed by the petitioner. The notice to the members must be a clear notice of 15 days. While it is the specific assertion that notice was received by him on 23rd of May, there is no material adduced to support such contention and accordingly, the said contention is rejected. The notice is issued on 20.05.2022 and meeting is held on 06.06.2022. No material is placed to make out that notice is not as prescribed under law. The Whole process is concluded within a period of thirty days. 13. Accordingly, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned resolution and the petition is disposed off.