A motion of no confidence under Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act can be initiated without the necessity of allegations, and the procedural rights under Section 48(4) do not apply in such cases.

ORDER

Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.

Petitioner who is the Upadhyaksha of respondent No.3 - Bengaluru Grama Panchayat and has called in question the correctness of the notice at Annexure-E, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has convened a meeting of the members at 11.00 a.m. on 12.01.2024 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

2. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that his term of office is 30 months as statutorily mandated and he is at the fag end of his term with 6V2 months and at such point of time, motion of no confidence ought not to be entertained. It is contended that the signatures of the members who have signed the notice at Sl. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19 for no confidence at Annexure-B, do no tally with the signatures at Annexure-A, which is the extract of the meeting proceedings book. It is further submitted that an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded as contemplated under Section 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act').

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate would point out that insofar as the allegation regarding signatures is concerned, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.23, the Panchayat Development Officer has sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.12.2023, in which a specific finding is recorded that the signatures of the members tally when compared with the signatures appended in the proceedings register.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.23 would also rely on the judgment in the case of Smt. Renavva and another vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad - 2015(3) Kar. L.J.622, to state that where allegation regarding dispute on signatures is raised, that is a matter that could be sorted out during the meeting.

5. Heard both sides.

6. At the outset, it must be noticed that the notice of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexures-E merely mentions that it is a motion of no confidence that is being considered in the meeting of 12.01.2024. Such notice as contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, does not require any allegations being made under Section 49(1). Motion of no confidence ought to be one without allegations. Insofar as the contention that there has to be allegation as contemplated under Section 48, it must be noticed that Section 48 relates to a different scenario wherein the ground mentioned is one of proven physical or mental incapacity certified by a competent authority approved by the State Election Commission or on the ground of securing employment in Central Government or State Government or public undertakings. On such ground, the member is liable to be removed from his membership and when such of the grounds are made, obviously as required under Section 48(4), the Adhyaksha or Upadhyakasha who is sought to be removed has to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. If that were to be so and when no grounds are made out as contemplated under Section 48(i) or 48(ii) of the Act, question of affording an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 48(4) cannot be extended to a motion of no confidence under Section 49 which is made without allegations. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that reasons have to be set out, that allegations of misconduct are to be made, clearly that is not what comes out on a plain reading of Section 49. Section 49 merely refers to moving of motion of no confidence without any further stipulation.

7. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason made out for interfering with the notice at Annexure-E. Further, it is made clear that in the event the members themselves on the date of meeting fixed i.e., on 12.01.2024 express reservation regarding their signatures, needless to state that the Returning Officer is entitled to consider the same. Insofar as the objection of the petitioner as regards the report at annexure-D, all that can be stated is that the only persons who could dispute the signatures are the membe