The omission of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 means no allegations are required for a no-confidence motion under Sub-section (1).

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief:

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ Order or direction to Quash the Notice No. kr/sam/Chunavane/aa.aa.su/c.aar.174/2024-25 dated 30/12/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, the copy of which has been produced at ANNEXURE-M.

b) Pass any other Writ, Order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case and allow the Writ Petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner claims to be the Adhyaksha of Galagi Gram Panchayath elected from Ward No.3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the notice dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, calling for a meeting on 18.01.2025 at 10.30 am, to consider the requisition submitted by respondents No.3 to 17, to move a resolution expressing no confidence with the petitioner’s performance as Adhyaksha.

3. The submission of Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

3.1. No reasons based on which the no-confidence motion is proposed to be moved, have been mentioned in the requisition dated 24.12.2024 at Annexure-L, as required under Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’, for short).

3.2. Secondly, a copy of the resolution in relation thereto has not been enclosed either along with the requisition or along with the impugned notice dated 30.12.2024.

3.3. In this regard, Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi relies upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Poornima Sudhin W/o. Sudhin Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others dated 15.12.2018 in W.P.No.50210/2018, more particularly paragraphs 15, 16 and 21 thereof, which are reproduced herein for easy reference:

15. In the present facts, the members moving the motion have not mentioned under which provision they are Issuing notice of motion of no-confidence. Accordingly, in such cases, it would fall to the Assistant Commissioner to make a very cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and determine as to whether the said motion of no-confidence is one under Section 49 (1) (without allegations) or 49 (2) [with allegations] of the Act and proceed.

16. It is clear that if the legislature had intended that there were two categories of motion of no confidence, the Assistant Commissioner would only have to decide on the basis of a bare perusal of the complaint as to which category the motion of no confidence would belong to. If it were to be one under Section 49 (1) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner has to proceed with the same as per the Rules framed, and on the other hand, if it were to be a motion of no confidence that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act, he will have no discretion to proceed with such resolution till Rules are framed providing for procedure to be adopted as regards such matters of motion of no confidence as observed by the Division Bench in Lakshmamma's case (supra).

21. The observation as regards the consequence on the motions of no-confidence as referred to in para 48 of the Division Bench judgment must be construed to be applicable as regards motion of no-confidence moved under Section 49 (2) of the Act which were pending consideration as on the date of passing of the order in the Division Bench and cannot be construed to be applicable as regards motion of no-confidence that were to be moved with allegations, i.e., those falling under Section 49 (2) of the Act, even after the judgment of the Division Bench. Hence, it is clear that it is not possible to treat a petition filed under Section 49 (2) after the disposal of W.A.No.844/2018 as one under Section 49 (1) of the Act.

3.4. By relying on the same, he submits that, whenever any requisition for a meeting to consider a resolution for no-confidence is made, the details and the basis on which no-confidence is sought for are required to be mentioned, the non-mentioning o