S.C. SRINIVAS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE notice dated 12.09.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner convening a meeting on 06.10.2014 to consider the motion of no confidence against the first petitioner President and 2nd petitioner Vice President, of the 3rd respondent Mantapa Grama Panchayat, is called in question in this petition.

(2.) THE first submission of the learned Counsel that in the representation of the members of the 3rd respondent/Grama Panchayat, there is a request to the Assistant Commissioner to examine as to whether or not petitioners held meetings and the Assistant Commissioner without answering the same proceeded to issue the notice. This submission at the very threshold deserves to be rejected since the learned Counsel is unable to point to any of the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, muchless the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no -confidence against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 which obligate the Assistant Commissioner to answer such queries of the members, particularly in a motion of no -confidence.

(3.) A learned Single Judge, in Abdul Razak Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub -Division, Davanagere And Others : (2005) 1 KLJ 230, having examined Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and R.3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no -confidence against 'Adhyaksha' and 'Upadhyaksha' of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, in the matter of no -confidence motion proposed against the 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha' of the Grama Panchayat, observed that, R.3 is a provision made for effectuating the substantive right given to members under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 where under every 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha' of a Grama Panchayat shall be forthwith deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two -thirds of the members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. The right given under Section 49 of the Act is to the members who have such a right to have the 'Adhyaksha' removed if not less than two -thirds of the members have expressed their lack of confidence in the said 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha'. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under R.3 of the Rules is for effectuating that right of the members only. It was further held that "an examination of R.3 of Section 49 of the Act does not give any right in favour of a person holding the offices of 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha', but it is only a motion conferring rights in favour of members of Panchayath to remove the said 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha'."