Naveena vs State Of Karnataka & Others

R. Nataraj, J

The petitioner being the Adhyaksha of Undiganalu Gram Panchayat, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, has challenged the notice dated 11.05.2022 issued by the second respondent proposing to hold a meeting on 30.05.2022 to table the no-confidence motion moved against her.

The petitioner was elected as the Adhyaksha of the aforesaid Undiganalu Gram Panchayat (for short, ‘the Panchayat’) on 02.02.2021. The respondent Nos.4 to 11 are the members of the Panchayat, who lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Panchayat Development Officer on 17.02.2022 accusing her of slackness in performing her duties. The petitioner alleged that the members were obstructing her work and therefore, she submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 as well as Deputy Commissioner and requested them to permit her to carry on the development works. In connection with the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan, in terms of the letter dated 31.03.2022, has forwarded copy of the representation of the petitioner to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchyat, Arasikere, instructing him/her to take necessary action and submit a report. Following this, the respondent Nos.4 to 11 expressed their intention to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner and submitted the prescribed Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 on 04.05.2022 (henceforth referred to as the ‘Rules of 1994’). Following this, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 11.05.2022 to the petitioner and fixed the date of meeting for considering the no-confidence motion on 30.05.2022. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the notice of the proposed no-confidence motion.

The petitioner claims that the notice of the intention to move a no-confidence motion was in continuation of the allegations made by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 against her and therefore, the same was ill-motivated. Even otherwise, she claimed that when there were allegations against her, the respondent No.2 ought not to have fixed the date for holding meeting to consider the no-confidence motion. She also contended that she had assumed charge of the office of Adhyaksha in the month of February 2021 and therefore, the no-confidence motion moved on 04.05.2022 was within fifteen months from the date of her assumption of office as Adhyaksha and as such, the same was not sustainable.

When the writ petition was listed for preliminary hearing, this Court entertained a question as to whether the ten days notice found in Proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as the 'Act of 1993') could be issued even before the Adhyaksha completed fifteen months from the date of his/her election.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intention on the part of the respondent Nos.4 to 11 to move the resolution expressing want of confidence in the petitioner should be preceded by a ten days notice and obviously it could not be issued before the petitioner completed fifteen months from the date of her election. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner completed fifteen months on 02.05.2022 and therefore, the notice of intention to move the resolution on 04.05.2022 by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 was premature.

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the intention to move the resolution has to be signed by one half of the total number of members of the Panchayat and must be submitted to the respondent No.2 who shall fix the date for considering the no-confidence motion and such date shall not be less than fifteen days from the date of the members submitting their notice to express no-confidence. She further relied upon the Judgments rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the following cases:

Smt. Parvathi v. The Assistant Commissioner and Another [ILR 1997 KAR 3230];

Abdul Razak v. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere and others [2004 SCC OnLine Kar 505];

Smt. Padmavva v. Assistant Commissioner, Jamkhandi Division [W.P.No.100324/2014 disposed off on 10.01.2014];

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case, the petitioner was elected as the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat on 02.02.2021 and therefore, fifteen months elapsed on 02.05.2022. The notice expressing intention to move the no-confidence was submitted by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 on 04.05.2022. The respondent No.2 being the Competent Authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.05.2022 proposing to hold a meeting on 30.05.2022 to consider the no-confidence motion. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the respondent No.2 cannot be found fault with and the same is in line with Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1994. The contention of the petitioner that the no-confidence cannot be moved within fifteen months from the date of her assumption of office in view of the second proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1993 is misplaced. Therefore, her contention is liable to be rejected. The petitioner could not point out whether the complaint lodged by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 before the Panchayat Development Officer could be construed as expressing intention to move a no-confidence. Therefore, on all counts, the case of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

In so far as the question that fell for consideration of this Court, the first proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1993 speaks about “notice of the intention to move the resolution” while the second proviso deals with “moving the resolution within the first fifteen months from the date of election”. The Rules of 1994 are structured in such a manner that the notice of no-confidence is given after the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha completes fifteen months from the date of his or her election. Therefore, the notice of the intention to move the resolution can be given to the Competent Authority only after completion of fifteen months from the date of his or her election as the Adhyaksha.

In the present case, on 02.05.2022, the petitioner has completed fifteen months from the date of her election as Adhyaksha while the notice of intention to move the no-confidence was submitted on 04.05.2022. The respondent No.2 had issued the impugned notice to the petitioner on 11.05.2022 and scheduled a meeting on 30.05.2022 to consider the no-confidence motion. There is no irregularity in the procedure adopted in moving the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Hence, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.