M MUNIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REMOVAL of the petitioners from the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Grama panchayat pursuant to a no confidence motion moved against them has been called in question in these Writ Petitions. The solitary ground urged is that the meeting of the Grama Panchayat convened to discuss the motion had been held more than 30 days after a notice of the motion was given and was therefore in violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (2) of what are known as karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Rule 3 no doubt envisages the holding of a meeting of the grama Panchayat not later than 30 days from the date on which a notice of no confidence is moved against the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha under Sub-rule 1 of the said rule. The petitioners maintain that the said provision is mandatory and a meeting convened more than 30 days after the receipt of the no confidence motion by the Assistant Commissioner would be illegal rendering any resolution passed in any such meeting legally unsound and inconsequential. Whether or not the provision is mandatory and whether this Court should interfere with the proceedings of the Grama Panchayat in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case are therefore the only questions that fall for consideration. The contentions urged can be better appreciated, if the facts are stated first:

(2.) THE petitioners were at the material point of time Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Neralur grama Pancayat. On 7. 9. 1996 a notice of a no confidence motion singed by 2/3 of the members of the Panchayat was lodged with the Asst. Commissioner for their removal. The Asst. Commissioner in turn issued notices to the members of the Grama Panchayat for a discussion on the motion in a meeting of the Panchayat convened on 10. 10. 1996. A meeting was accordingly held on the date fixed in which the petitioners did not participate. AH the same, out of a total of 19 members of the Grama Panchayat, 14 attended the meeting in which 13 voted for the motion while one voted against the same. The motion was therefore carried with 2/3 of the total strength of the Grama Panchayat voting for the removal of the petitioners who were pursuant to the resolution called upon to deliver the books and the records in their custody to the Secretary of the Panchayat. It is not in dispute that an Administrator was also appointed for the Grama panchayat pending fresh elections who remained incharge of the affairs of the panchayat during the interregnum. A notice was then issued by the Asst. Commissioner for a fresh elections to be held on 15. 11. 1996. In the said elections, the 6th respondent was elected un opposed as the adhyaksha of the Panchayat. No election was however conducted for the post of Upadhyaksha. Two days before the holding of this election, the petitioners came up with the present Writ petitions challenging the no confidence proceedings held against them on 10. 10. 86 on the ground indicated earlier. By an interim order issued by this Court in these petitions, the announcement of the result of the election in so far as Upadhyaksha's post was concerned alone was stayed. This meant that in so far as the post of Adhyaksha was concerned, the elections could go on and the person elected could as well assume office. The Writ Petition was eventually heard by a single bench of this Court (L. S. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. ,) and allowed on 16. 1. 97. The decision is reported in ILR 1997 Kar 677. This Court held that the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Rules in question in so far as the same required a meeting of the Panchayat to be held no later than 30 days of the making of the motion was mandatory and any violation of the same rendered the proceedings illegal. Aggrieved by the said decision, the 6th respondent who was the reigning Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat filed Writ Appeals No. 1518-1640/97 in which apart from other contentions it was urged that the petitioners had secured a judgment in their favour without impleading the said respondent as a party to the proceedings even when they knew that he had been elected as Adhyaksha of the Panchayat after their removal. The appeals succeeded and were allowed by the division bench by its order dated 16. 4. 1997 holding that the petitioners had suppressed material facts and that the Writ Petition itself was on that ground liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the order of the division bench, the petitioners filed S. L. Ps. No. 9470-71/97 which were allowed by an order dated 13. 2. 1998 with the agreement of the parties. The apex Court directed the Writ petition itself to be restored and heard again by this Court. The orders passed earlier were set aside. On remand, the Writ Petition was allowed once again by a single judge of this Court (Chandrashekaraiah J. ,) by order dated 5. 6. 98. This order was also challenged in an appeal by the 6th respondent and was set aside by the division bench by its order dated 24. 6. 98 with the direction that the matter shall be heard and disposed of afresh. That is precisely how the present writ Petition has come up for hearing before me third time in a row.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioners strenously argued that Rule 3 of the Karnataka panchayat Raj (Motion of non-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama panchayat) Rules 1994 was a mandatory provision of law and any violation thereof would render the no confidence proceedings illegal. He urged that Rule 3 was similar to the provision which was considered by the full bench of this Court in C. PUTTASWAMY v. SMT. PREMA, AIR1992 Kant 356 , AIR1992 KAR 356 and that the meeting of the grama Panchayat having been admittedly held more than 30 days after the no confidence motion was moved, there was no option but to declare the same to be illegal. Decisions were cited in support of the submission that where the provisions of the statute are clear and unambiguous, the courts must give effect to the same.