The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice for motion of no-confidence. The court held that statutory rights under Section 49(1) take precedence over Rules, and the notice need not contain allegations as per the Rules.
The writ petition was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.113852/2019 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SHOBHA VIRUPAXI ZONDH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ADHYAKSHA NAGRAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O NAGRAL VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 26.08.2019 ISSUED IN NO.GP/CR-11/2019-20 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was elected as the member of the Nagral Gram Panchayat and was also elected as Adhyaksha of the said Gram Panchayat. It is stated that notice has been issued on 26.08.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner fixing 17.09.2019 as the date for consideration of motion of no-confidence.
3
witnesses and evidences in support of the allegation made. Hence, it is contended that the notice in the present case is bad in law and in violation of Rule 3 of the above said Rules.
4
Rule 3 remains unamended despite the order in W.A.No.844/2018 and the circular of the Government dated 25.01.2019 wherein the Government has undertaken to frame fresh rules with respect to motion of no confidence moved under Section 49(2) of the Act.
It is further contended there is an incongruity insofar as the rules when being made applicable even with respect to motion of no confidence under Section 49(1). There appears to be contradiction between the Rule 3 of the Rules and the statutory provisions. The Government is to take note of said incongruity and ensure that rules applicable with respect to “no confidence motion” under Section 49(1) are clearly specified and ambiguity be removed.
that the necessary steps have been taken for framing of Rules with respect to motion of no confidence to be
5
moved under Section 49(2) containing allegations consequent to the observation passed in
W.A.No.844/2018.
Sd/JUDGE
Sh/Naa
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice for motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 must contain allegations and evidence as per Rule 3.
Whether the Rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence restrict the statutory right to move a motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act.
Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of the notice issued for motion of no-confidence should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not SpecifiedReferred¶25
W.A.Nos.844/2018
Not SpecifiedReferred¶28
W.A.No.844/2018
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Shobha Virupaxi Zondh
State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary, Dept. of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development
The Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Sub-Division
The Gram Panchayat, Nagral
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
