Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DINESH MAHESHWARI, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, JJ.
Smt. Lakshmamma w/o Devaraja Bhovi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka rep. By the Principal Secretary and Ors - Respondent
W.A.Nos.844, 853, 855, 856, 864, 871, 867, 873, 872, 911, 868, 875, 876, 877, 887, 888, 897, 942, 900, 901, 909, 914, 929, 916, 926, 932, 933, 940, 941, 944, 950, 994, 951, 957, 960, 961, 979, 982, 989, 990, 993, 1010, 1014, 1060, 1065, 1076, 1253, 899, 1082, 1254 of 2018 (LB-RES) AND 866, 879, 880, 913, 915, 917, 919, 925, 928, 930, 1003, 1015, 1016, 1062-1064, 1073, 1080, 1282-1283, 1224, 1270 of 2018 (LB-ELE)
Decided on : 12-10-2018
Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 – Sections 49, 50, 44 – Motion of no-confidence – Intra-court appeals, essentially involving similar questions relating to provisions contained in Section 49 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and motion of no-confidence brought thereunder, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment – One of appeal in this group is directed against order, whereby Single Judge dismissed writ petition only on ground that meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence had already been convened and proceedings stood concluded. – Held, Rules are made applicable even to motions moved under subsection (2) in which ‘specific allegations’ are a pre-requisite. – By their very nature, a debate becomes inevitable on such motions under sub-section (2). – Unless and until a comprehensive set of Rules as applicable to these motions is promulgated, this newly added subsection (2) will continue to remain unworkable. – Government Circular, being only of executive instructions, cannot be a substitute for Rules. – Most of motions of no-confidence, as involved in present cases, have already been put to floor of concerned Houses and, it is pointed out that most of such motions have been adopted. Such motions of no-confidence have been found by Single Judge to be conforming to all requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 49. – No cogent and convincing reason has been placed before us in any of these matters that motion of noconfidence is not in conformity with other requirements of subsection (1) of Section 49. – That being position, resolutions adopted on such motions deserve to be taken to their logical conclusion. – In pending writ petitions, of course, validity of notice of motion per sub-section (1) of Section 49 may be examined, if any question in that regard is raised and to this extent, court would leave matter open for examination in pending writ petitions – Court is clearly of view that these intra-court appeals deserve to be dismissed and orders impugned, as passed by Single Judge, deserve to be upheld except observations occurring in paragraph 37(V) of order, where Single Judge has observed that motion of noconfidence under sub-section (2) of Section 49 would remain subject to mode and method for its consideration as per sub-section (1). – Such mode and method would only relate to requirement of number of members for moving motion and for adopting resolution on that basis – Motions of noconfidence in decided writ petitions shall be deemed to be those moved under sub-section (1) of Section 49 and cannot be considered invalid. – Directions in impugned order and other orders passed on that basis remain unexceptionable and call for no interference – Appeals Dismissed
Preliminary
1. These intra-court appeals, essentially involving similar questions relating to the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act of 1993’) and the motion of no-confidence brought thereunder, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.
2. In a brief outline of the subject matter of these appeals, it may be pointed out that most of the appeals in this group of matters are directed against the common order dated 28.02.2018, as passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.Nos.1935-1936/2018 (LB-RES) wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court, while rejecting the contentions against the validity of subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and against the legality of the proceedings for consideration of respective motions of no-confidence, declined to interfere with the impugned motions and notices of meetings for consideration of such motions of no-confidence; and in two writ petitions (W.P.Nos.3434/2018 and 3435/2018), allowed the Gram Panchayat concerned to go ahead with the meetings to be notified afresh for consideration of motion of no-confidence. A few other appeals (W.A.Nos. 990/2018, 1010/2018, 1016/2018, 1282-1283/2018 and 1270/2018) are directed against the orders subsequently passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the respective writ petitions in terms of the aforesaid lead order dated 28.02.2018, while 8 other appeals in this group of matters (W.A.Nos.1014/2018, 1015/2018, 1060/2018, 1073/2018, 1080/2018, 1253/2018, 1224/2018 and 1254/2018) are directed against the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge in pending writ petitions subsequent to the aforesaid lead order dated 28.02.2018, providing that the proceedings pursuant to the notices of such meetings for consideration of motion of no-confidence shall remain subject to the result of the writ petitions. One of the appeal in this group (W.A.No.1065/2018) is directed against the order dated 27.02.2018, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the meeting for consideration of the motion of noW. confidence had already been convened and the proceedings stood concluded.
3. It may also be pointed out that in view of different stage and status of the proceedings related with these matters, this Court, while taking up these appeals for consideration, has passed different interim orders of the nature that the resolution of no-confidence passed were not to be given effect to and status quo as existing prior to passing of the resolution was to be maintained, whereas in some of these matters, it is also provided that the concerned appellant would not be taking any decision having financial implication as regards Panchayat in question, but may carry out necessary day to day activities. In some of the cases where meetings for consideration of motion of no-confidence or even for fresh election were to be convened, it was provided that the slated meetings may be proceeded with, but the resolution thereof shall not be given effect to.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of these cases and the questions involved, these intra-court appeals were taken up for hearing in priority and we have heard multifarious arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. 5. In essence, the questions on the validity of sub-section (2) of Section 49 and in the alternative, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 are involved as the main plank in these matters. Hence, appropriate it would be to reproduce Section 49 of the Act of 1993 at the outset and as under:
“49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- (1) Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
