R SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 6 and 7 were Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively of Neralur Grama panchayat which comprises of 19 members. On 7-9-1996 a written notice to move a motion of no-confidence against the said respondents was given by more than V3rd of the total number of the members of the Panchayat. Elected members of the Panchayat were intimated about the motion and for convening a Meeting for consideration of the said motion on 10-10-1996. In the meeting 15 out of 19 members of the Panchayat participated. Fourteen members voted for the motion and 1 member voted against the motion. The motion was declared to have been passed by majority of more than 2/3rd members of the Grama Panchayat. The validity of the no-confidence motion was challenged by respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal.

(2.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant who was not impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petition despite his unanimous election on 15-11-1996 as adhyaksha of the aforesaid Panchayat. The impugned judgment is stated to be against the principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter called the 'act' for short) and the rules made thereunder.

(3.) RELYING upon Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Act the learned Single Judge held that as the no-confidence motion was passed after 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to the Assistant Commissioner, the same being contrary to law was liable to be quashed. After referring to the provisions of the Act, rules made thereunder and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnat Leather Karamchari Sanghatan v Liberty Footwear company (Regd.) and Others , the learned Judge held: "in my considered view, Section 49 of the Act read with the rules are a complete code in themselves deliberately provided by the legislature having regard to the elective office of adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules merely directory".