Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Gangambike, had been elected as a member of Koppa Grama Panchayat, Piriyapatna Taluk, on 17 May 2010, and subsequently as Adhyaksha on 29 December 2012. On 10 February 2014, fourteen members of the Panchayat (respondent Nos. 3 to 16) submitted a written notice of no-confidence motion to the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No. 1) under the proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner issued notices on 19 February 2014 convening a special meeting on 11 March 2014 for consideration of the motion. The petitioner, citing indisposition, requested adjournment on 10 March 2014, but the Assistant Commissioner rejected the request as there is no power to adjourn such a meeting under the Rules. At the meeting held on 11 March 2014, 14 out of 19 members attended and voted in favour of the motion, which was thus carried by a majority of more than two-thirds of the total number of members. Consequent upon the motion being passed, the Assistant Commissioner accepted it and issued an order removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha, which was published on the notice board of the Panchayat. The petitioner challenged the entire proceedings by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the notice of motion, the meeting notice, and the final order of removal. The sole ground urged was that the meeting was conducted without any debate and without recording reasons, rendering the removal illegal. The respondents, however, argued that the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules was scrupulously followed, and that Rule 3(7) explicitly prohibits any debate when the motion is put to vote. The court considered the statutory framework: Rule 3(1) requires a written notice signed by at least one-third of the members; Rule 3(2) mandates the Assistant Commissioner to give notice of the meeting; Rule 3(5) states that the meeting shall not be adjourned for any reason; and crucially, Rule 3(7) directs that the Assistant Commissioner shall read the motion and put it to vote without any debate. Rule 3(8) prohibits the Assistant Commissioner from speaking on the merits or voting. The court held that the authority had no power to adjourn the meeting, and since the statutory provision specifically barred debate, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in proceeding without debate or recording reasons. The motion having been validly passed by the requisite majority, the consequential order of removal was flawless. The court found no ground to issue a Rule Nisi and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Raj - Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha - Conduct of Meeting Without Debate - Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994, Rule 3(7) - The rule explicitly prohibits any debate at the meeting and requires the Assistant Commissioner to read the motion and put it to vote directly; non-recording of reasons does not vitiate the proceedings - Held that since the motion was carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total members, the impugned proceedings were lawful and interference was not warranted (Paras 7-8) B) Panchayat Raj - Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha - Adjournment of Meeting - Rule 3(5) of the said Rules and T. Rajakumar Naik v. Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga, 2014(1) KCCR 947 - The Assistant Commissioner has no power to adjourn the meeting convened for consideration of a no-confidence motion; once quorum is present, the meeting must proceed - Held that the rejection of the Adhyaksha’s request for adjournment due to illness was proper and did not affect the validity of the ensuing meeting (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion passed without any debate and without recording reasons was valid under Rule 3(7) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994?
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the proceedings were in accordance with Rule 3(7) which prohibits debate, and the motion having been carried by more than two-thirds majority, the impugned order was valid. No ground to issue Rule Nisi.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rule 3(7) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules
- 1994 prohibits debate when no-confidence motion is put to vote
- No-confidence motion can be passed by not less than two-thirds majority
- Assistant Commissioner has no authority to adjourn meeting for no-confidence motion under Rule 3(5) read with T. Rajakumar Naik case
