M MUNIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties, issue rule. Petitioners 1 and 2 were the adhyaksha and upadhyaksha respectively of the neralur grama panchayat. On 7th september, 1996 more than one-third of the total number of members of the said panchayat gave a written notice to the third respondent under Rule 3 (1) of the Karnataka panchayat RAJ (motion of no-confidence against adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of grama panchayat) rules, 1994 (for short 'the rules') to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, notices were issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules to the elected members of the said grama panchayat convening a meeting for consideration of the said motion at the office of the grama panchayat on 10th october, 1996. The said meeting was presided over by the third respondent. Out of the nineteen elected members of the grama panchayat, fifteen members participated in the meeting; fourteen members voted for the motion and one member voted against the motion. The no-confidence motion was carried through by a majority of more than two-thirds of the total number of members of the grama panchayat. Annexure-B is the true extract of the meeting proceedings book relating to the said no-confidence motion.

(2.) IN this joint-writ-petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the motion of no-confidence passed against them on 10th october, 1996 vide Annexure-B and the consequential orders at annexures-c and d passed by the third respondent under Section 49 of the Karnataka panchayat RAJ Act, 1993 (for short 'the act') read with sub-rules (9) and (10) of Rule 3 of the rules.

(3.) SRI g. Manivannan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioners ought to have been convened not later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the rules was delivered to the third respondent as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules and, as such, the no-confidence motion carried against the petitioners is invalid, contrary to Section 49 of the act and the procedure prescribed thereunder.