Gadigeyya vs Assistant Commissioner, Savanur

Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.-Petitioner is the Pradhan currently of Hire-bendigeri Mandal Panchayat. He is aggrieved by the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Savanur, Dharwad District, the true copy of which is at Annexure ''A''. That notice is issued in Form No.2 read with Rule 4 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (No Confidence) Rules, 1985.

The complaint is that the said notice does not disclose any information as to who was moved the No Confidence Motion and whether it has the requisite support as mandated by Section 47 of the Act.

Section 47 provides for Motion of No Confidence against Pradhan or Upa Pradhan of Mandal Panchayats. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 provides that a written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchayat, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Deputy Commissioner (since amended) (to the Assistance Commissioner). Sub-Section (3) provides that the Assistant Commissioner shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Mandal Panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed subject to the restrictions in the explanations provided. We need not consider ourselves the other sub-sections for the disposal of this case.

From the language of sub-sections, it is clear that no confidence motion must be signed by more than half the number of members of the Mandal Panchayat. Such motion should be in the prescribed form and in writing. That should be delivered in person by at least two of those who have signed such motion to the Assistant Commissioner. It is thereafter that the Assistant Commissioner is required to act and convene a meeting to consider the motion. The only mandate insofar as the initial action of the Assistant Commissioner concerned is that he shall (1) call a meeting within thirty days from the date of issue of notice as indicated in sub-section (2) and he shall give clear 15 days notice to the members to attend such a meeting.

Insofar as the impugned notice is concerned, it is dated 13-7-1988 and presumably it has been received on the same day or soon thereafter. In an event, there is no complaint that it does not give notice of clear 15 days. Therefore that part of Section 3 is satisfied. It is also not the case of the petitioner that meeting is not called within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, mandate of Section 3 is observed by the notice. No infirmity on those grounds exists.

The only complaint which survives for consideration is that the Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat is entitled to the Motion of No Confidence along with the notice. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Fakiragouda Jeevanagouda v Chief Executive Officer, Mundagod & Others (1980(2) Kar.L.J. 51). In the said case, the learned Single Judge of this Court interpreting Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Village Panchayats & Local Boards Act, 1959 (since repealed) found that the Motion of No Confidence against the Chairman of the Village Panchayat should be served on the Chairman. Now, the correctness of the decision cannot be questioned because Section 32 of the afore-mentioned Act specifically provided that the Motion of No Confidence should be served on the Chairman himself in writing by those moving it with the requisite number of members signing the same. The departure in the Zilla Parishad Act is, the motion intended to be moved is not to be served on the Pradhan, but on the Assistant Commissioner who alone has the duty of calling the meeting for considering the motion. If this distinction and difference is borne in mind, the decision is of no assistance to contend that Motion of No Confidence must be served on the Pradhan.

Similarly, reliance placed on the decision of the High Court of Assam, as it then was, in the ease of S. Amiruddin Ahmed v S.D.O., Mangalgoi & Others (AIR 1971 ASSAM & NAGALAND 163) is also of no assistance to the petitioner for what was decided in that case was the number of votes required to carry a Motion of No Confidence and nothing to do with whether along with notice of meeting. Motion of No Confidence should be served on the Chairman or Pradhan. If the Pradhan is not entitled to receive the copy of the ''No Confidence Motion'' either under the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, he cannot make a grievance of it. He shall be aware of it if he attends the meeting on 30th.

For the above reasons, there is no merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.