CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the motion of no confidence against petitioner-Adhyaksha and the show cause notice convening the meeting on 27.10.2014 to consider the motion of no confidence. Learned Senior Counsel points to the contents of the motion of no confidence- Annexure-A to contend that the remiss mentioned therein requires an opportunity of hearing to be extended to the petitioner, regard being had to Sub Section 4 of Section 48 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, ('the Act' for short) without which, no confidence motion must fail. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in T.Bhagyalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 1998 1 KarLJ 731.

(2.) There can be no dispute that Section 48 of the Act provides for Resignation or removal of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha and Sub-Section 4 provides that, every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat would be entitled to an opportunity of hearing before being removed from his office for persistent remiss in discharge of duties as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. The opinion expressed in T.Bhagyalakshmi's, case supra, is in consonance with the Statute.

(3.) Section 49 of the Act provides for Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat, where under every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, shall be deemed to have vacated his office, if a resolution expressing want of confidence 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 prescribed. The right extended under Section 49 of the Act is to the members to have the Adhyaksha removed, if not less than two-thirds of the members have expressed their lack of confidence in the Adhyaksha.