ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned High Court Govt. Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. Caveator counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 18.

3. The petitioner is the President of the Marashettihalli Gram Panchayat-second respondent herein and that the petitioner is aggrieved by the legality and correctness of the motion of no confidence dated 19.06.2019 and the meeting notice dated 01.07.2019 scheduled to be held on 17.07.2019 is before this court.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on an earlier occasion 17 out of 22 members second respondent Panchayat had moved a proposal on 05.03.2019 and the first respondent, pursuant to the proposed no confidence motion convened a meeting on 14.03.2019 vide meeting notice dated 01.04.2019. That the meeting convened on 14.03.2019 is said to have lapsed on account of there being no quorum. The copy of the proceedings drawn up by the first respondent on 14.03.2019 is produced as Annexure-B.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of drawing up of the proceedings, the second meeting notice called on 17.07.2019 is illegal and lapsing of the motion also has to be read down and brought within the ambit of the third proviso to Section 49(1) of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) which reads as follows:

“Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived [emphasis by Court] by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [within two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat.]”

On a plain reading of the third proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act makes it apparent that the framers of the law in their wisdom have deemed it necessary, that for the bar under the third proviso to be attracted, the proposed motion of no confidence ought to have been considered and negatived i.e. there must be a completion of the process envisaged under sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short the ‘Rules 1994’) which reads as under:

“(7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.”

6. On a reading of the rule it is apparent that the first respondent Assistant Commissioner is required to readout to the members assembled, the motion, for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and such motions ought to be put to vote without any debate. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 provides for exercise of franchise by the members and mandates that motion ought to be carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the gram panchayat and further details the consequences of the motion being carried out by the majority. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:

“(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, if he is not present at the meeting.”

7. It is also relevant to note the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1994 which mandates that the meeting cannot be convened in the event there is no quorum within an hour of the appointed time. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as under:

“(6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the