Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 59 (KAR)

Kavita W/o Subhash Rajput v. State of Karnataka

2025-05-08

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2025
ORDER : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: “Whereof it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records and issue; a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice issued by the respondents No: 3 dated 21.04.2025 vide as per Annexure-E and E1, in the interest of justice and equity. b) Issue any writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in circumstances of case, in the ends of justice”. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as under: Petitioner No.1 is the President of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat and Petitioner No.2 is the Vice President of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat. 12 members of the said Gram Panchayat moved representation before respondent No.3 on 07.03.2025 to initiate no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.3 issued a notice on 17.03.2025 calling for the meeting on 03.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., to discuss no-confidence motion against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the notice dated 17.03.2025, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.201001/2025 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 dismissed the writ petition vide Annexure-D. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.3 issued fresh impugned notices on 21.04.2025 in Form No.2 under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of no- confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘Rules of 1994’) fixing the date of no-confidence motion as 08.05.2025 at 11.00 a.m. There was no 15 clear days notice while issuing the impugned notices and the same is in violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 21.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexures-E and E1, have filed this writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.5 to 16 have filed statement of objection denying the averments made in the writ petition and it is contended that the impugned notices are dated 21.04.2025 and the date of meeting is fixed on 08.05.2025. Thus, requirement of the rules is to give 15 clear days notice. The impugned notices are in accordance with the said Rules and there is no illegality in the process. It is stated that notice of meeting was served on all the twelve respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 16 on 22.04.2025. Thus, requirement of the rules is to give 15 clear days notice. The impugned notices are in accordance with the said Rules and there is no illegality in the process. It is stated that notice of meeting was served on all the twelve respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 16 on 22.04.2025. Notice was duly served on another member by name Smt.Neela W/o Sridhar Hegde on 22.04.2025. In respect of other 5 members including the petitioners, notice was served on them on 22.04.2025 itself and they refused to accept the same. The PDO/Secretary of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat has submitted report dated 23.04.2025 to respondent No.3. The copy of the report of PDO/Secretary of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat is produced and marked as Annexure-R1. It is contended that after receipt of report from the PDO, the petitioners have received the notices on 28.04.2025 with dishonest intention as to make it appear that there has been no 15 clear days notice. It is contended that respondent No.3 has complied the mandatory provisions by issuing 15 clear days notice and not of service of notice with 15 clear days. It is stated that even if the date of issuing notices and the meeting date are excluded, there is 15 clear days notice. Hence, the alleged date of service becomes irrelevant for consideration. It is submitted that the petitioners earlier filed writ petition in W.P.No.201001/2025 and by misrepresenting the Court obtained an interim order staying the operation of the notice calling for a meeting to consider no-confidence motion. This Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 16.04.2025. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, filed writ appeal in W.A.No.200114/2025. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.04.2025. Hence, on these grounds, the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of Smt.Hema L.K., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 16. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no 15 clear days notice in issuing the impugned notices. Thus, the impugned notices are in violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994 and it is against the dictum laid down by this Court in W.P.No.101890/2022. She submits that notice was served on the petitioners on 28.04.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no 15 clear days notice in issuing the impugned notices. Thus, the impugned notices are in violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994 and it is against the dictum laid down by this Court in W.P.No.101890/2022. She submits that notice was served on the petitioners on 28.04.2025. Therefore, 15 clear days notice has to be considered from the date of service of notice and not from the date of issuance of notice. On these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 16 submits that respondent No.3 directed the PDO/Secretary of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat to serve copy of the impugned notices to the members of the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3, PDO/Secretary of the said Gram Panchayat made an attempt to serve copy of the impugned notices to the petitioners on 22.04.2025. However, the petitioners have refused to accept the impugned notices and accordingly, the PDO has submitted report to respondent No.3 on 23.04.2025. He also submits that the petitioners in order to avoid no-confidence motion are filing writ petition after writ petition. He submits that 15 clear days has to be considered from the date of issuance of notice and not from the date of service of notice to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have refused to accept the notices on 22.04.2025 and notices were issued on 21.04.2025 fixing the date of meeting as 08.05.2025. Thus, 15 clear days notice is issued and respondent No.3 has fulfilled the requirement of Rule 3(2) of Rules of 1994. He submits that the petitioners with a dishonest intention avoided to receive the notices. When the PDO/Secretary of the Bharatgi Gram Panchayat has submitted report to respondent No.3, petitioners received the notices on 28.04.2025. He submits that the petitioners had knowledge regarding issuance of notices. Hence, he submits that there is no violation of Rule 3(2) of Rules of 1994. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no violation of Rules of 1994. Hence, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no violation of Rules of 1994. Hence, she prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. It is not disputed that petitioner No.1 was elected as President and petitioner No.2 was elected as Vice President of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.5 to 16 have submitted representation to respondent No.3 to initiate no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President of the said Gram Panchayat. After receipt of the representation dated 07.03.2025, respondent No.3 issued notice on 17.03.2025 calling for meeting to discuss no-confidence motion against the petitioners on 03.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners aggrieved by the notice dated 17.03.2025, preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.201001/2025. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 16.04.2025 by recording a finding that there is no violation of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 as projected by the petitioners. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.200114/2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that after disposal of the writ petition, the Assistant Commissioner has issued fresh notices of meeting on 21.04.2025 fixing the date of meeting as 08.05.2025, the writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 28.04.2025. 10. The contesting respondents have produced the report dated 23.04.2025 submitted by the PDO/Secretary of the Bharatgi Gram Panchayat as Annexure-R1 wherein it is stated that the PDO/Secretary tried to serve copy of the notices to the petitioners on 22.04.2025. But the petitioners have refused to accept the copy of the notices. Hence, service of notice is held sufficient. The petitioners have not filed rejoinder denying the contents of Annexure- R1 and no allegation is made against the PDO/Secretary of the Gram Panchayat for submitting report as per Annexure-R1. The petitioners filed writ appeal in W.A.No.200114/2025. The said writ appeal was listed on 28.04.2025. The learned Government Advocate submitted that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the impugned notices were issued. The petitioners did not mention before the Hon’ble Division Bench regarding service of impugned notices on 28.04.2025. The petitioners filed writ appeal in W.A.No.200114/2025. The said writ appeal was listed on 28.04.2025. The learned Government Advocate submitted that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the impugned notices were issued. The petitioners did not mention before the Hon’ble Division Bench regarding service of impugned notices on 28.04.2025. In the writ appeal, the petitioners had an opportunity to mention regarding service of impugned notices on 28.04.2025. Thus, the petitioners to avoid no-confidence motion filed this writ petition on untenable grounds that there is no 15 clear days notice. Admittedly, this is the second writ petition. The petitioners have suppressed the material fact regarding refusal of service of notices. Thus, the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material fact. The petitioners with a dishonest intention have refused to accept the notices and thereafter, on 28.04.2025 have received copy of the notices. At the cost of repetition, the notices were issued on 21.04.2025, after perusal of the report of PDO, it discloses that the PDO went to the residence of the petitioners on 22.04.2025, the petitioners refused to receive the notices. 11. Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 reads as follows: "3. Motion of No-confidence. - (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by [not less than specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person [specified under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person] by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) by registered posts; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Grama panchayat. (4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two third of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at such meeting. Explanation-For determination of two third of total number of members under this sub-rule any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned. (6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse. (7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the member of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the member of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such ceassation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, if he is not present at the meeting. (10) After the cessation is notified under sub- rule (9) the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be shall, immediately hand over all documents, moneys or other properties of the Grama Panchayat in his custody to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. (11) The election to the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be held until the notification under sub-rule (9) removing the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, is published.” 12. Sub-rule(2) makes it clear that Assistant Commissioner shall convene a meeting for the consideration of motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form-II. As per Rule 3(2) of Rules of 1994, respondent No.3 issued notices on 21.04.2025 to the members of the Gram Panchayat of not less than 15 clear days of notice. 13. Even assuming that from the date of service of notice, from perusal of Annexure-R1, it is clear that the petitioners have refused to receive notices on 22.04.2025. From the date of refusal i.e., 22.04.2025, the meeting is scheduled to be held after 15 days from service of notice. Thus, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.3 are 15 clear days notices from the date of refusal. From the date of refusal i.e., 22.04.2025, the meeting is scheduled to be held after 15 days from service of notice. Thus, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.3 are 15 clear days notices from the date of refusal. Hence, there is compliance of Rule 3(2) of Rules of 1994. The impugned notices issued by respondent No.3 are in compliance of Rule 3(2) of Rules of 1994. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. 14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.3 is directed to hold no-confidence motion in accordance with law today itself i.e., on 08.05.2025.