Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For Records From R1 Relating To The Notice Of Allegations Contained In Letter Dtd 25.09.2014 Produced At Annx-A, Submitted By R-G And Others And To Quash The Notice Of Meeting Issued In Form-2 Dated 29.09.2014 Issued By The R-L Herein, A Copy Of Which Is Produced At Annx-C.)
1. Heard Sri S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the motion of no confidence against petitioner-Adhyaksha and the show cause notice convening the meeting on 27.10.2014 to consider the motion of no confidence. Learned Senior Counsel points to the contents of the motion of no confidence- Annexure-A to contend that the remiss mentioned therein requires an opportunity of hearing to be extended to the petitioner, regard being had to Sub Section 4 of Section 48 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, ('the Act' for short) without which, no confidence motion must fail. Learned Senior Counsel places reliance on a decision of the learned Single Judge in T.Bhagyalakshmi v. State of Karnataka reported in 1998(1) Kar.L.J. 731.
2. There can be no dispute that Section 48 of the Act provides for Resignation or removal of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha and Sub-Section 4 provides that, every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat would be entitled to an opportunity of hearing before being removed from his office for persistent remiss in discharge of duties as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. The opinion expressed in T. Bhagya] akshmi's, case supra, is in consonance with the Statute.
3. Section 49 of the Act provides for Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat, where under every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat, shall be deemed to have vacated his office, if a resolution expressing want of confidence is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The right extended under Section 49 of the Act is to the members to have the Adhyaksha removed, if not less than two-thirds of the members have expressed their lack of confidence in the Adhyaksha.
4. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, for short Rules, provides for effectuating the substantive right given to the members under Section 49 of the Act. Therefore, Rule 3 and Section 49 cannot be independent provisions, but have to be viewed together. If so viewed Section 49 of the Act, does not extend any right in favour of person holding the office of 'Adhyaksha', except for conferring right in favour of the members of the Panchayat to remove the 'Adhyaksha'. Viewed in this perspective, rule can only be examined in the context of Section 49 for effectuating which provision the rule is framed. Any member can therefore complain of non-compliance of the requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules and thereby seek invalidation of the notice in whose favour a right under Section 49 of the Act is invested and not 'Adhyaksha'. In other words, the 'Adhyaksha' is a person who is required to face a motion of no confidence and survives to the post, if only the number of members supporting the motion fall short of the requisite number of two-thirds of the membership of the Panchayat. If that is complied with, then effect is that Adhyaksha is deemed to have vacated the office. Thus, it is the expression of loss of confidence by not less than two-thirds of the members of the Panchayat for removing the 'Adhyaksha' from the office under Section 49 of the Act. It is in this context that the learned Single Judge having examined the aforesaid provisions i.e, Section 49 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules held that the person holding the office of 'Adhyaksha' or 'Upadhyaksha' cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but must allow himself to face the no confidence motion in Abdul Razak v. The Assistant Commissioner,  Davanagere  Sub-Division, Davanagere and others 2005(1) Kar.L.J.230.
5. Having noticed the aforesaid two statutory provisions, one under Sub Section 4 of Section 48 of the Act for removal of the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha for persistent remiss and the other being a motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha under Section 49 r/w Rule 3 of the Rules, it is crystal clear that both provisions operate independent of each other.
6. Merely because Annexure-A no confidence motion, the signatories being members of the Grama Panchayat mention certain acts in discharge of duties by the Petitioner Adhyaksha not agreeable with the members, does not necessarily mean, that it is not a no confidence motion under Section 49 of the Act. If the members of the Grama Panchayat have not initiated action against the Petitioner under Sub-Section 4 of Section 48 of the Act for persistent remiss, petitioner must be more than happy that the members have not sought her removal, but on the other hand have moved a no confidence motion to quietly ask her to vacate the office, having lost confidence in the members. The consequences of a proceeding under Sub-Section 4 of Section 48 of the Act touching upon petitioner's misconduct is much more severe than vacating the post of Adhyaksha for lack of confidence.
7. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel cannot, be countenanced. Petition devoid of merit is rejected.