M. LATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elected member of Zilla Panchayat, Tumakuru. The petitioner is also elected Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat. The petitioner has called in question the meeting Notice dated 30.09.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, consequent to the proposal of 'Motion of No-confidence' expressed by some of the members of the Zilla Panchayat, vide a communication dated 10.09.2020.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 180 (2) (a) read with Section 179 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ), some of the members communicated by a letter dated 10.09.2020 both to the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayat and the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat expressing their 'No-confidence' and therefore sought for a meeting to enable the 'Motion of No-confidence'. Consequently, the Regional Commissioner, issued a Notice dated 22.09.2020 fixing the date of meeting for consideration of the motion on 07.10.2020. However, on 30.09.2020 one more Notice was issued by the Regional Commissioner, which states that in view of the Calendar of Events being issued by the Election Commissioner on 29.09.2020, scheduling the elections for the Biennual Election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Karnataka South-East Graduates Constituency and Bangalore Teacher's Constituency and in view of the fact that the Returning Officer being statutory officer must stay in the office of the Returning Officer till 12.10.2020, the earlier date for consideration of the 'Motion of No- confidence' was rescheduled to be conducted on 15.10.2020, considering the 10 days period for serving the notice to the members as per the Rule

(3.) (2) of the Rules. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government has notified the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') w. e. f. 15.09.2020. It is submitted that once the Rules were brought into effect, the Regional Commissioner was required to follow the Rules. It is submitted that sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules would provide that the Regional Commissioner or equivalent officer as the case may be, was required to convene a meeting for consideration of the ''Motion of No-confidence' within a period of 15 days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 was given to him. The learned counsel submits that though the members had given the proposal for motion on 10.09.2020, before the Rules were brought into effect, however, while re-fixing the date of meeting, the Regional Commissioner was required to take into consideration the provisions of the Rules.