M. ANANDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to quash a notice issued in Form-II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') vide Annexure-E given by 2nd respondent - the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Bangalore.

(2.) Material facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 23 are the elected members of Konaghatta Village, Kasba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, a local body constituted under S.5 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). Respondent No.18 is the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat. Petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6, 8, 10, 13, 17 and 19 to 22, resolved on 25.02.2014, to move a No-Confidence motion against the respondent No.18 - Adhyaksha of the Panchayat and submitted a written notice of their intention in Form-I on 01.03.2014. The said written notice and the declaration are at Annexures-A, B and C. Upon receipt of written notice in Form-I, respondent No.2 gave notice in Form-II vide Annexure-E and instructed the Panchayat Development Officer 3rd respondent, vide Annexure-D, to serve the said notice on all elected members of the Panchayat, to attend the meeting to be held at 11.00 a.m., on 15.03.2014. Seeking to quash Annexures-D and E, this writ petition was filed.

(3.) Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned advocate, contended that the Panchayat has 21 members, out of whom 14 members resolved on 25.02.2014 to move No- Confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha - respondent No.18. He submitted that, subsequently, the whereabouts of respondent Nos.19 and 22 being not known from the date of receiving the notice vide Annexure-E from the respondent No.2 and the son of respondent No.22 having lodged a Police complaint on 11.03.2014 and the Police having registered a case in Crime No.29/2014 vide Annexure-F, as per S.49 of the Act, to pass a resolution on the No-Confidence Motion, the majority of not less than two-third of the total number of the members of the Panchayat being necessary, respondent No.18, with an intention to defeat the Motion, having managed to keep respondent Nos.19 and 22 in unlawful custody, the impugned notice is required to be quashed, since, between the date of giving the notice and the date fixed for the meeting, there is only 10 days, which falls short of the period stipulated in Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 3. He contended that the notice being illegal, interference is called for.