ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are members of the Gram Panchayat, Sirawara village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. They are challenging the action of the respondent-Authority in convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, to consider the No-confidence Motion moved against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) The twin contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are, that the impugned notices issued by the 3rd respondent were not served on the petitioners and although they purport to bear the signatures of the petitioners, the said signatures have been forged. The second contention is, that while Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act"), requires two-third majority for the purpose of carrying No-confidence against the Chairperson of the Gram Panchayat, such a restriction is not imposed under Sections 140(3) and 179(3) of the Act under similar circumstances in case of Chairpersons of Taluk Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat. It is thus contended that the statutory condition requiring two-third majority for passing No-confidence Motion in the case of Chairpersons of Gram Panchayat is irrational and discriminatory.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate who takes notice for respondents 1 to 3 strongly refutes these contentions and submits that the intention of the petitioners is only to stall the No-confidence Motion initiated against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. He urges that question whether the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act requiring support of two-third of the total members for passing No-confidence against the President and Vice-President is unconstitutional, has been raised by the petitioners only to serve their design to prevent the democratic process of consideration of the No-confidence Motion.