High Court at Dharwad Bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha challenging a meeting notice for a no-confidence motion, holding that the notice met the 15-day requirement and the motion did not involve allegations falling under Section 49(2).
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 9th day of January 2020
Before
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
Writ Petition No.104362 of 2020 (LB-Res)
BETWEEN
HONNNAVVA NINGAPPA HURALIKOPPI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ADHYAKSHA OF GRAM PANCHAYATH HIREMUGADUR, R/O: HIREMUGADUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118.
...PETITIONER
AND
2
SANGUR-581101, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING OF NO.CONFIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 27.12.2019.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the meeting notice dated 27.12.2019 by which meeting has been convened to consider the ‘no-confidence motion’ moved against the petitioner.
confidence motion’ was moved on an earlier occasion, was before this Court in W.P. No.107261 of 2019 challenging the same. In the said writ petition, this Court had observed that ‘no-confidence motion’ could be moved under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act’). A fresh ‘no-confidence’ motion has been initiated under Annexure-C dated 17.12.2019 and based on the said ‘no-confidence’ given to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, under the notice dated 27.12.2019, has convened
5
meeting on 13.01.2020 to consider the same. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court contending that there is no clear fifteen days notice as required under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules’).
6
motion of ‘no confidence’ simplicitor and it would not contain any allegation and hence it would not fall under Section 49(2) of the Act. Hence, no case is made out to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Kms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice of meeting dated 27.12.2019 provided a clear fifteen days notice as required under Rule 3 of the Rules.
Whether the notice issued by respondent No.2 contravenes Section 49(2) of the Act by containing allegations.
Whether the writ petition challenging the notice of adjournment of no-confidence motion requires interference to be granted.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
HONNNAVVA NINGAPPA HURALIKOPPI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAVERI
S.G. PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
