Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Ratnamma Baramappa Nagara - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, M S Building Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 146835 of 2020, 146836 OF 2020, 146837 OF 2020, 146838 OF 2020, 146839 OF 2020, 146840 OF 2020, 146841 OF 2020, 146842 OF 2020, 146843 OF 2020, 146844 OF 2020, 146845 OF 2020, 146846 OF 2020, 146847 OF 2020, 146848 OF 2020, 146849 OF 2020, 146850 OF 2020, 146851 OF 2020, 146852 OF 2020, 146853 OF 2020
Decided On : 27-08-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 32 and 142 – Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 – Sections 180, 49, 179 – No Confidence Motion – Prayer to Quash letter – Writ petitions are filed seeking writ in nature of certiorari to quash letter/communication issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A and consequently, letter/communication issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. – Petitioners are also seeking writ in nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hold a special meeting for No- Confidence Motion moved by petitioners against respondent No.4. – Held, On a plain reading of these words inserted in amended provision of Section 179 of Principle Act, Court do not find any legislative intent indicating that authority exercising power under amended provisions has to wait until and unless, rules are framed in that regard. – Word "may" would in no way preclude authority from exercising its power under Statute. – Controversy in regard to exercise of authority under amended provisions, in present case on hand, has been dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in M. Veerabhadraiahs case. – Court is of view that in absence of any such express provision, framing of rules cannot be a condition precedent for exercise of power under Statute. – Principle Act clearly contemplates a procedure and there would be no impediment for authority to follow existing procedure, more particularly when petitioners are seeking vote of No-confidence and a requisition is sent to authority calling upon them to fix special meeting in this regard. – Process of No-confidence cannot be postponed and same is impermissible in law. – Impugned communication issued by respondent No.1 at Annexures-A and B are one without jurisdiction and authority. – Court is of view, that there is inaction on part of respondents in not considering representations submitted by petitioners as per Annexures-K and L. – Communication issued by first respondent as per Annexure-A and consequential communication issued by second respondent as per Annexure-B respectively are contrary to law and for reasons stated supra are liable to be quashed – Petitions Allowed
JUDGMENT
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petitions are filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter/communication dated 16.05.2020 bearing No. U .C Ag 138 f 2020 issued by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A and consequently, letter/communication dated 20.05.2020 bearing No. P A: DP :Z u :02:2020-21 issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. The petitioners are also seeking writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to hold a special meeting for 'No- Confidence Motion' moved by the petitioners against the respondent No.4.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:
The petitioners are the elected members of the Zilla Panchayath, Koppal. The petitioners have contended in the writ petition that in the elections conducted on 20.02.2016, the Indian National Congress won 17 seats whereas, the Bharatiya Janata Party won 11 seats and one seat went to an independent candidate. As per the reservation policies, the post of President of the Zilla Panchayath was reserved in favour of general candidate and accordingly, elections for the post of President, Vice- President of Zilla Panchayath was held on 30.04.2016 and one Mr. Nagarahalli was elected as President. The said person tendered resignation to the post of President on 14.06.2017 and on account of vacancy, elections were again conducted on 17.07.2017 and one K.Rajshekhar Basavaraj Hittnal was elected as President. The said person also tendered resignation on 26.10.2018. In view of vacancy, fresh election was conducted on 28.12.2018. In the said elections, the respondent No.4 was elected as President and till today, the respondent No.4 is holding the post of President.
The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the respondent No.4 has failed to take confidence of members of Zilla Panchayath and is acting in arbitrariness. The respondent No.4 has also failed to undertake any progressive work in the development of Zilla Panchayath. This compelled the petitioners to convey their views to the respondent No.4 and a request was made to change his approach in functioning as a President of Zilla Panchayath. The petitioners contended at para 3 of the writ petition that the respondent No.4 is not in a mood to heed to the request of the petitioners and in this background, it appears the petitioners decided to move 'No-confidence motion' against the respondent No.4 and accordingly, notice was sent to respondent No.4 on 18.05.2020 requesting him to call for a special meeting to consider the 'No-confidence motion' against the respondent No.4. The petitioners went to the chambers of the President to give notice personally and the respondent No.4 refused to receive the notice of 'No-confidence motion'. This compelled the petitioners to resolve to initiate 'Noconfidence motion' and accordingly, a resolution also came to be passed on 11.05.2020. The copy of resolution dated 11.05.2020 and notice dated 18.05.2019 are produced and marked as Annexures F and G. The petitioners also submitted the said notice by post to the office of the respondent No.4 and personal assistant of respondent No.4 has received the notice and has given acknowledgment for having received the notice. The petitioners also contended that the said notice is sent through E-mail, speed post and courier to respondent No.4 and copy of the said notice is also forwarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The petitioners have specifically contended in the writ petition that since respondent No.4 failed to call for a special meeting as per the mandate of Section 180 of the Act, the petitioners decided to call for special meeting to hold 'No-confidence motion' against the respondent No.4 as per the procedure contemplated under Section 180(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') and also requested the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3 Zilla Panchayat to fix the date for special meeting in co
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
