Thippeswamy vs State Of Karnataka And Ors

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

The matter is listed for consideration of interlocutory application for vacating stay. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the meeting notice dated 15.02.2019 (Annexure-D) convening the meeting on 06.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering the motion of no confidence proposed by the private respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner, that earlier, vide Annexure-A respondents had made a complaint and moved a motion for expressing their no confidence in the petitioner. That the Assistant Commissioner on receipt of the same, forwarded the same and obtained a report and that the report absolved the petitioner of all the allegations. That the motion earlier moved is one under sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. That in view of the report absolving the petitioner, after a lapse of time, the present motion of no confidence is proposed by the respondents on 12.02.2019. On receipt of the same, the Assistant Commissioner - the authority to hold the motion of no confidence has issued the meeting notice dated 15.02.2019 convening the meeting on 06.03.2019 at 11.00 a.m.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents having failed in their earlier attempt to move the motion of no confidence under Section 49(2) of the Act, are now trying to avail of the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Act and that the same is impermissible. It is contended that if the present proposed motion is allowed to be moved, then it would virtually amount to upholding the allegations made by the respondents on an earlier occasion under Annexure-A and it would virtually amount to removing the petitioner in the light of the allegations leveled earlier.

The submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, are misplaced. The provisions of Rule 3(2) to 3(9) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, sets out the procedure and the manner in which the meeting is to be conducted. Rules 3(7) & 3(8) clearly specifies that as soon as the meeting is convened, the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members the motion for consideration. The motion that is proposed for consideration is as under:

"ಚಳ್ಳಕೆರೆ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು, ಚನ್ನಮ್ಮನಾಗತಿಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾಮ ಪಂಚಾಯತಿಯ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರಾದ ಎಸ್.ತಿಪ್ಪೇಸ್ವಾಮಿ ಇವರ ವಿರುದ್ದಸಿ ಪಂಚಾಯತ್‍ರಾಜ್ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ, 1993 ರ ನಿಯಮ 49(1) ರನ್ವಯ ಸದರಿಯವರನ್ನು ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ ಸ್ಥಾನದಿಂದ ತೆಗೆದು ಹಾಕಬೇಕೆಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸುವ ತಮ್ಮ ಉದ್ದೇಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾದ ನಾವು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ನೋಟೀಸು ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆ."

The proposed motion is neither stigmatic nor does it contain any allegations and it is a simple motion expressing no confidence in the leadership of the petitioner. Rule 3(8) further mandates that the Assistant

Commissioner is also disentitled to speak on the merits of the said motion, which reads as under:

"(8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon."

In that view of the matter, the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are not based on any reasonable grounds. That apart, the motion of no confidence proposed under Section 49(2) of the Act has not been put to vote. In that view of the matter also, there is no bar for the instant motion of no confidence proposed now. Hence, petition stands rejected.

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, interim order granted earlier stands dissolved.

In view of disposal of main petition, the pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly disposed off.