VENKATARAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the 'Adhyaksha' and 'Upadhyaksha' respectively of Madderi Grama Panchayath of Kolar Taluk, which has 14 elected members. 10 members of the Panchayath submitted a requisition dated 24-7-2009 to the respondent, expressing No-confidence in petitioners and requested respondent to convene a special meeting of the Panchayath, to consider the proposed motion of No-confidence. Respondent issued Notice in Form -II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rules'). Respondent notified the members and also Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha that, a special meeting to consider the motion of No-confidence is convened to be held at 11:00 a.m. on 20-8-2009 in the office of Grama Panchayath. Petitioners along with two other members questioned the said notice in O.S. No. 512/2009 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kolar. Along with the suit, they filed I.A. -I under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code, to restrain the Assistant Commissioner. Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar and the Secretary of the Panchayath, from conducting the meeting on 20-8-2009. It was stated that, till fulfilling of the requirements stipulated under Section 47 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993, (for short 'the Act'), such meeting should not be held. Defendants filed objection statement to I. A. No. 1. The said Court arrived at a finding that, notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner was not in accordance with law and hence I. A.-I was allowed. As a result thereof, 11th and 12th defendants were restrained from conducting No-confidence motion on 20-8-2009. However, 11 th defendant was directed to conduct No-confidence motion against plaintiffs 1 & 2, by issuing a fresh notice, after complying with the requirements under Section 47 of the Act. Indisputably, said order has remained unchallenged.

(2.) 10 members of the Panchayath thereafter, submitted requisitions dated 22-8-2009 expressing No-confidence in the petitioners. Requisitions were submitted to the respondent, by 4 members in the presence of Secretary of the panchayath. Requisitions had enclosures i.e., proposed motion of No-confidence against both the petitioners. Copies of the said requisitions are as at Annexures C & D. Though, Annexures C & D refer to enclosures, petitioners have not produced the enclosures. Based on the said requisitions, respondent issued notices under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, to petitioners and all other elected members of panchayath. Respondent has given notices dated 31-8-2009 as at Annexures A & B, fixing the meeting to be held at the Panchayath Office at 11:00 a.m. on 16-9-2009. Petitioners have questioned in these writ petitions, the said notices, mainly on three grounds, namely : (i) Notices of intention of moving No- confidence motions (Annexures C & D) being not in the prescribed Form-I, the same are illegal. (ii) Notices issued in Form-II (Annexures A & B) are in violation of Rule 3(2), since there is no 15 days clear notice before the meeting date i.e.. from the date of service. (iii) The life of present body of panchayath, which will come to an end on 24-2-2010, being less than 6 months from the meeting date, no useful purpose could be achieved even by expressing No-confidence and removing the petitioners from their offices, as election cannot be conducted to a body which has a life span of less than 6 months.

(3.) Sri H. Kantharaja, learned counsel appearing for petitioners reiterated the aforesaid grounds. In support of the 1st and 2nd contentions, reliance was placed on the following decisions : 1. Sangappa v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur district and another (ILR 2004 Kar 1102) 2. Smt. Sujatha v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bellary & others (W. P. No. 293/2007 dated 19-1-2007). (3) M. Muniyappa and another v. State of Karnataka and others, (1999 (4) Kar L.J. 42) 4. K. Narasimhiah v. H. C. Singri Gowda and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 330) 5. Munnalal Agarwal v. Jagdish Narain and others (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 31): (1999 AIR SCW 4417).