Dismissed

Sri Siddalingaiah B R v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2022WP/11306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging Notice No. ELN:CR:38/2022 proposing a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, President of Bhaktarahalli Grama Panchayat. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions regarding procedural defects in the notice and motion filing as per the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act and its Rules, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition with all contentions raised by the petitioner was rejected and dismissed in their entirety.

Sri Siddalingaiah B R Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11306 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH B.R., S/O LATE RAJANNA B.C., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O BYPANAHALLI, BHAKTARAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561204.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561204

¶12

THE PANCHAYTAH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SASALU HOBLI, BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204

¶13

SMT. HEMAMALINI H.R. W/O HEMANTH, AGED MAJOR BYPANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204

¶14

¶15

SMT. LATHA W/O GIRISH, AGED MAJOR, SHIRAGONDANHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER, BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204 5. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O RANGAHANUMAIH AGED MAJOR, KANAKENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER KADA ALAPANAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA -561204

¶16

SHRI RANGAPPA S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, R/AT MALLAGOUDANAHALLI, KADA ALAPANAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204

¶17

VENKALAKHMAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED MAJOR, CHOUDAINAPALYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA -561204

¶18

SMT. PRATHIMA R W/O UMESH, AGED MAJOR, BHAKTHARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA -561204

¶19

RAJANNA S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER

¶20

¶21

AGED MAJOR, BHAKTHARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA -561204

¶22

SRI HANUMANTHE GOWDA T.R. S/O RATHNAPPA, AGED MAJOR, KADATHIPURA-2 GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA -561204

¶23

SMT. ARASAMMA K.M. W/O RAJANNA, AGED MAJOR, MUDLAKALENGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER BHAKTHARAHALLI POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204

¶24

SMT. CHIKKATHIMMAKKA W/O KRISHNAMURTY AGED MAJOR, GUNDLEHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MEMBER DODDAMANKALALA KOLIGERE POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-561204

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE/ORDER DATED 26.05.2022 ISSUED IN NO.ELN:CR:38/2022 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶28

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner being the President of the Bhaktarahalli Grama Panchayat (for short, 'the Panchayat') has filed this petition challenging the notice dated 26.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 proposing to convene a meeting on 14.06.2022 to consider the noconfidence motion moved against him by the members of the Panchayat.

¶32

The contentions urged by the petitioner are three-fold:(i) that two members of the Panchayat did not personally appear before the respondent No.1 and submit their intention to move a no-confidence (ii) that along with a written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993') in Form I, the members were required to furnish "a copy of the proposed motion" as specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj

¶33

¶34

(Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules of 1994'); and (iii) as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, a notice in Form II shall be given to every member including Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha by delivering or tendering such notice to such member, which in the present case is not done.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate has secured the file and submits that the file discloses that all the members of the Panchayat had signed the notice of intention to make motion in Form I and that all of them appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and submitted the same in person, which is evident from the signature of the Assistant Commissioner found thereon. She further submitted that furnishing a copy of the proposed motion is only in a case where the no-confidence motion is based on an allegation against the Adhyaksha. In view of the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of

¶36

¶37

the Act of 1993 with effect from 31.03.2020, stipulation in sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 that Form I should be accompanied with a copy of the proposed motion has lost its significance. She further submitted that the sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 is also strictly complied with inasmuch as all the members were served with the notice in Form II. She, therefore, contends that the contentions urged by the petitioner are not worthy of consideration.

¶38

A perusal of the file maintained by the respondent No.2 would indicate that all the members of the Panchayat appeared before the respondent No.1 on 20.05.2022 and the respondent No.1 had acknowledged the receipt of notice in Form I by endorsing thereon. Therefore, the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

¶39

In so far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government

¶40

¶41

Advocate, the words that "a copy of the proposed motion" specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 is to be furnished are applicable only when the proposed motion is based on an allegation and when the proposed motion is moved under the erstwhile sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993, which in the present case is not and therefore, the second contention is also liable to be rejected. In so far as the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice was not given to every member of the Panchayat is concerned, the file discloses that notice in Form I was issued to all the members of the Panchayat and therefore, this contention is also liable to be rejected.

¶42

In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

sma

Sri Siddalingaiah B R v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddalingaiah B R v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Sri Sadananda Vs the Commissioner

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt Sunitha Vs the Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri S F M Ummer Vs the Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Kashif Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka