RATNAMMA BARAMAPPA NAGARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter/communication dated 16.05.2020 bearing No. U .C Ag 138 f 2020 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A and consequently, letter/communication dated 20.05.2020 bearing No. P A: DP :Z ? u :02:2020-21 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. The petitioners are also seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hold a special meeting for 'No- Confidence Motion' moved by the petitioners against the respondent No.4.

(2.) The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:

(3.) Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel by relying on the judgment rendered in BHANUMATI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, 2010 12 SCC 1, would contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court by applying the Doctrine of Silence has held that the right of 'No-confidence motion' is inbuilt under Indian Constitution. Relying on this judgment, he would contend before this Court that right of 'No-confidence motion' is constitutional right of the elected members. Relying on this judgment, he would further contend that these institutions must run on democratic principles and in democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue, provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. The respondent No.4 is not acting in fairness and is not discharging his duty and as such, he does not inspire confidence of petitioners and in this background, the petitioners were compelled to move for a 'No-confidence motion'. By relying on this material aspect, learned Senior Counsel would submit to this Court that democracy demands accountability and transparency in the activities of the persons heading public bodies and since respondent No.4 has lost confidence of majority members, the 'Noconfidence motion' cannot be kept in abeyance.