Allowed

Suneel Vagu Salake v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022WP/101737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenged a resolution moving a No Confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha of Naganur Gram Panchayat, as it was filed within the restricted 15-month period prescribed by the Karnataka Gram Panchayat Act. The court quashed the resolution.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed. The impugned resolution dated 22.04.2022 moved by the Gram Panchayat was quashed and set aside. Liberty was reserved to the members to move the motion of No Confidence a

Suneel Vagu Salake Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101737 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 101737 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally
signed byVINAYAKA
B V
VINAYAKAB V Location:Dharwad
Date:
2022.06.09
10:22:14
+0530

¶9

SUNEEL VAGU SALAKE, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. SELF EMPLOYEE, R/O. ATTANAGI VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN-581 346

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHETAN T LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP . BY ITS P PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AC OFFICE, SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI-581 401.

¶15

NAGANUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NAGANUR, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR, (UTTAR KANNADA)-581346.

¶16

NARAYAN FAKKIRAPPA VADDAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA). Pin 581 346.

¶17

YASHODA GANAPATI PATIL, AGEd ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 101737 of 2022

¶20

TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN -581 346.

¶21

LAXMI HONNAPPA VALMIKI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN -581 346.

¶22

BANGAREVVA BASALINGAPPA SUNAGAR, AGED.ABPIT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANAMAPUR VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN -581 346.

¶23

SHARADA SALUNKE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CACHLAGERI VILLAGE, POST. CHIPAGERI, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 346.

¶24

RAGHU DHOLU GHAVADE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CACHLAGERI VILLAGE, POST. CHIPAGERI TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN-581 346.

¶25

GANGAVVA ANAND VADDAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ATTANAGI VILLAGE, POST. HANUMAPUR, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 346.

¶26

BASAVARAJ NAGAPPA BAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALKERI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 349.

¶27

KEERTHI LAXMAN BANSODE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALKERI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 349.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 101737 of 2022

¶30

SOMANNA SANNADYAVANNA BISAGANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALKERI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 349.

¶31

BASAVANNEVVA HANAMANT VADDAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANDALAGI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA), PIN-581 349.

¶32

DHOLU DONDU KOKRE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIRAGERI VILLAGE, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA) PIN-581 349.

¶33

RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. VINAYAK V.S. HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R12, R13, R14 & R15, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 22.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H & ETC.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

¶37

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

¶39

WP No. 101737 of 2022

¶40

ORDER

¶41

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶42

Learned counsel Sri S.V. Yaji undertakes to file vakalath for respondents No. 4, 5, 12, 13, 14 and 15. He is permitted to file vakalath within a period of two weeks from today. Notice to respondent No.3 stands dispensed with.

¶43

Nevertheless, learned counsel Sri S.V. Yaji submits that since it is contended by the petitioner who is the Adhyaksha of Naganur Gram Panchayat that the motion for No Confidence is moved within the restricted period of 15 months as prescribed in the second proviso to Sub Section (1) of Sec. 49 of The Karnataka Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the petition itself may be allowed while permitting the members of the Gram Panchayat to move No Confidence Motion afresh, with due compliance to the provision of law.

¶44

Since it is admitted by the respondents that the motion of no Confidence could not have been moved against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat within a period of 15 months from the date of election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and admittedly the motion of No Confidence in the present case has

¶45

¶46

WP No. 101737 of 2022

¶47

been moved within the restricted period, the impugned resolution dated 24.02.2022 is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶48

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned resolution dated 22.04.2022 at Annexure-H passed by the members of the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶49

Liberty however is reserved to the members of the Gram Panchayat, to move the motion of No Confidence against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

¶50

SD JUDGE

¶51

BVV

Suneel Vagu Salake v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Vagu Salake v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rekha W/O Ningappa Kolala Vs Sri. Ningappa S/O Shivalingappa Kolala

Vinayak Ramachandra Gayakawad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala W/O Iranna Ganiger Vs Iranna S/O Shivaputrappa Ganiger

M/S Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

M/S Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

G Hameed Basha S/O. Late G Imamsab Vs the Tahasildar