K. UMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the Adhyaksha of Nandibevoor Gram Panchayat has challenged the notice dated 25.07.2018 issued by respondent No.2 convening a meeting to consider motion of no confidence moved by the members. The admitted facts being the motion of no confidence that was earlier moved had come up for consideration on 17.03.2018 and due to absence of quorum on the said date, proceedings of the meeting were suspended. The members by representation dated 18.07.2018 while putting forth the relevant facts have sought for reconvening of a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence that was moved previously. It is on the basis of this representation dated 18.07.2018 the notice came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening meeting on 03.08.2018. It is stated that pursuant to the notice at Annexure-G, motion of no confidence came to be passed and that further vacancy that arose as regards to the post of Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat was also filled up by the election and 5th respondent came to be elected as Adhyaksha on 05.09.2018. It is to be noted that this Court while considering the plea for grant of interim relief has observed as follows:

(2.) Pursuant to the order dated 03.08.2018, the motion of no confidence came to be passed and the petitioner was removed from the post of Adhyaksha. The petitioner moved the matter once again on 04.09.2018 and had sought for appropriate orders as the election of Adhyaksha was slated on 05.09.2018. This Court has observed that the proceedings including that of the election to the post of Adhyaksha were all subject to the result of the writ petition. It would be appropriate to extract the order dated 04.09.2018 which reads as follows:

(3.) Pursuant to the order dated 04.09.2018 as there was no prohibition as such as regards the election of Adhyaksha, the election was held and the 5th respondent was elected as per the proceedings on 05.09.2018. The matter was taken up for final disposal and the primary contention of the petitioner on the merits of the matter is that the representation at Annexure-F could not have been taken note of by the Assistant Commissioner and be acted upon. The counsel for the petitioner states that when once the meeting could not be held due to absence of quorum the notice itself shall lapse. It is pointed out that as per Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakhsa of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) in the absence of quorum the meeting would stand dissolved and a notice given under Sub Rule (1) shall lapse. Hence, it is submitted that the members ought to have moved a fresh motion of no confidence and their request as per Annexure-F to convene fresh meeting by relying on Sections 50, 52 and 53 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) is not legally tenable. It is contended that the question of re-convening the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence submitted earlier is not legally tenable.