Writ Appeal No. 160 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . MRS. GAGANA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS PRESIDENT, KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDARAYAPETE - 2 DODDARAYAPETE VILLAGE & POST PIN - 540 752, KASABA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT (BY SRI SANTOSH B.M., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGALA - 571 440. 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . - 2 - THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571 313. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752.
Legal Reasoning
SMT. JYOTHI W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MODDAALAMOLE GRAMA CHAMARANAHAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. SRI MAHADEVASWAMY @ COLOUR S/O MAHADEVAIAH D.D AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. SRI GIRISH S/O LATE. MAHADEVASETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752 10 . SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE. SIDDASETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 540 752. - 3 - 11 . SRI M.K. CHANDRU S/O KRISHNASETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MOODALAMOLE GRAMA CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 12 . SRI SIDDARAJU.P S/O PUTTASWAMYSETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 13 . SMT. VINODHA W/O BASAVANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 14 . SMT. YOGESHWARI W/O MAHESHKUMAR H.P AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 15 . SMT. BASAMMANI W/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDLURU VILLAGE AND POST CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 16 . SMT. MANJULA W/O RACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH BOODITTU GRAMA - 4 - CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 17 . SMT. MAHESHWARI W/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDARAYAPETE - 1 CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 18 . SRI MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDARAYAPETE -1 CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. 19 . SRI. NAGENDRA S/O SIDDARAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS KUDLURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDARAYAPETE - 1 CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 540 752. ... RESPONDENTS (SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 & SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-19) --- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.34746/2024 (LB-RES) AND ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. B.M. Santosh for the appellant, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. A. Nagarajappa for respondent Nos.7 to 19. 2. The appellant- original petitioner, by filing the present appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 whereby Writ Petition No.34746 of 2024 came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge. 2.1 On the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner challenged notice dated 10.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-Division, Kollegala, whereby the said authority called the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 30.12.2024 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the No-Confidence Motion presented against the petitioner-President. It was prayed to set aside the said notice as illegal on the various grounds set out in the petition. - 6 - 3. The petitioner was elected as Adhyaksha of Kudluru Gram Panchayat , Doddarayapete-2, Chamarajanagara Taluka in Scheduled Tribe category. She had been functioning as Adhyaksha since 31.07.2023. It was the case that on 04.12.2024, respondent Nos.7 to 19-the members of the Gram Panchayat, made a representation before the Assistant Commissioner raising No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The impugned notice dated 10.12.2024 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to such representation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Santhosh for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order to submit that the petition could not have been dismissed inasmuch as the moving of No-Confidence Motion was illegal and issuance of the notice by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner was bad in law. What was highlighted to further the contention was that the Panchayat Development Officer put his seal when the proposal in Form No.I for no-confidence was forwarded. 4.1 It was contended that the motion was to be delivered in person to the Assistant Commissioner by two members of the Gram Panchayat as contemplated under Rule 3 (1) of the - 7 - Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat) Rules, 2020. It was contended that the No- Confidence Motion in the present case was routed through Panchayat Development Officer which rendered the entire process vitiated. 4.1.1 It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the requirements of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 were not complied with. It was contended that the appellant had been acting as a whistle blower for condemning the illegal acts of the Panchayat Development Officer and the Second Division Assistant of the Panchayat by filing various complaints against them. 4.1.2 It was contended that the Motion of No-Confidence by the members was upon instigation of the said two officers and was ill-motivated to settle the score against the petitioner. It was submitted that the Panchayat Development Officer had unlawfully obtained the signatures and counter signed Form No.I. Therefore, the entire process was rendered defective and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. - 8 - 4.1.3 Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Sharada W/o Ramesh N and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others which was Writ Petition No.100346 of 2025, decided on 20.01.2025. 4.2 On the other hand, the respondents supported the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 4.3 It may be stated that this Court passed order dated 01.02.2025, whereby learned Additional Government Advocate was required to secure the files from the office of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner with regard to the procedure followed by him before issuing of notice and to get instructions whether the motion had been duly submitted in terms of Rule 3 of the Panchayat Raj Rules of 2020. 4.3.1 In course of hearing, original file was made available by learned Additional Government Advocate for perusal of the court. The court has seen the said files, the original papers, the notice and No-Confidence Motion. 5. The controversy lies in the narrow compass as to whether the No-Confidence Motion was moved in compliance of the procedure envisaged in law. The question to be - 9 - addressed is whether because of the seal of the Panchayat Development Officer on the No-Confidence Motion notice rendered it illegal in eye of law. 5.1 Before proceeding further, relevant statutory provisions may be noticed. The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 deals with the Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upaadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be. 5.1.1 The said Section is reproduced herein, (1) Every Adhyaksha "49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: further that no Provided resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within the first fifteen months from the date of his election: - 10 - Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within six months from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat." 5.1.2 The aforesaid provision is a substantive provision dealing with the requirements for moving the Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat. The First Proviso says that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members and with minimum ten days of notice is given of the intention to move the resolution. The Second Proviso bars moving of No-Confidence Motion within first fifteen months from the date of election of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. 5.1.3 Rules called the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 are framed. Rule 3 of the said Rules about Motion of No-confidence bears relevance to the controversy which reads as under, "3. Motion of No-confidence. - (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the - 11 - proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by [not less than specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person [specified under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person] by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. intimation about (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every and Adhyaksha including the member Upadhyaksha. (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within - 12 - the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) by registered posts; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to resided or carried on have business within the Grama panchayat. last (4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at such meeting. Explanation-For determination of two third of total number of members under this sub-rule any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) to (11) ... ... ..." 5.1.4 The above Rule provides that a motion of No-Confidence shall be submitted in Form No.I and that it shall be signed by not less than specified number of members mentioned in Section 49(1) of the Act of 1993, which is not less than two- thirds of the total strength of the members. It is further contemplated that the proposed motion shall be delivered in person. The Motion of No-Confidence was moved by ten members on 27.01.2025. It came to be submitted by the members to the competent authority-Assistant Commissioner. - 13 - The appellant produced certified copy of the said notice dated 27.01.2025. 5.2 The facts on record go to establish that the requirements of Section 49 of the Act regarding moving of No-Confidence Motion through requisite number of members, and manner of issuance of notice were met with and on that count there was illegality. The allegations of the petitioner of the nature that the motion of no-confidence was politically motivated etc. were bald and remained totally unsubstantiated, to be referred to only to be rejected. Merely because the document of the notice dated 27.01.2025 which was No-Confidence Motion signed by the requisite number of members, had the seal and signature of the Panchayat Development Officer, the said Motion of No-Confidence has been acknowledged by the office of the Assistant Commissioner. 6. Before learned Single Judge, as also before this Court, the only issue which was seriously put forth and harped by the appellant was about breach of Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules on the ground that the No-Confidence Motion, before came to be submitted to the competent authority-the Assistant Commissioner, passed through the office of Panchayat - 14 - Development Officer and bear seal and signature of the Panchayat Development Officer. Thereafter, the members of the Panchayat gave the requisition to the Assistant Commissioner. 6.1 Merely because the said notice-the no confidence motion which was otherwise signed by the requisite number of members and came to be given to the competent authority, had a seal of the Panchayat Development Officer and then it was placed before the Assistant Commissioner and acknowledged, no illegality could be said to be occurred in the process. On consideration of the material on record including the original record which was made available to the Court by learned Additional Government Advocate, as noted above, it is not possible to conclude that the process gave a go-by to the requirements of Rule 3(1) of the Rules to violate the said Rule. 6.2 Learned Single Judge has rightly observed in paragraph 5, extracting from the impugned order, "It is to be noticed here that what is important for the purpose of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and Rules is that the requisite number of members must express their intention to keep the motion of no-confidence in the manner prescribed and so long as that intent is manifest in the - 15 - requisition, a signature by the PDO in the said requisition would not vitiate the notice." 6.3 The requisite number of members had signed the No-Confidence Motion and the same was thereafter given by the members to the competent authority-Assistant Commissioner. The Gram Panchayat members who are the village persons who function in the grassroot level body of local self government, cannot be expected to be mathematically meticulous in submitting the No-Confidence Motion. They followed the requisite procedure and complied with the essentials of the legal provision applicable. The same may have contained the seal of the Panchayat Development Officer, but, for that reason the motion which was otherwise validly taken out by the requisite number of members and given to the Assistant Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 49 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules, no illegality could be said to have been committed to vitiate the procedure. 6.4 The factum that the No-Confidence Motion may have gone to and traveled through the Panchayat Development Office was at the best, in the nature of the irregularity and not the illegality. - 16 - 6.5 The distinction between the 'irregularity' and 'illegality' is well maintained in law. It is trite that procedural lapse which does not have the bearing on the rights of the parties is always condonable. It would not have per se legal consequences. It is only the substantive breach which will have the vitiating effect. All defects of substantive nature would be prone to have the adverse effect on the rights of the parties, whereas when an irregularity has occurred which is not in the nature of illegality, the consequence in law may not arise at all. 6.5.1 In Law Lexicon by R. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997 Edition, irregularity is defined as "a neglect of order or method; not according to regulations; the doing of an act at an unreasonable time, or in an improper manner; the technical term for every defect in practical proceedings or the mode of conducting an action or defence, as distinguished from defects in pleading. Irregularity is failure to observe that particular course of proceedings which, conformable with the practice of the court, ought to have been observed". 6.5.2 An illegality is something which amounts to substantial failure in compliance of requirement. It denotes such breach of rule or requirement which alters the position of a party in terms - 17 - of his rights or obligations. Illegality denotes a complete defect in the jurisdiction or proceedings. Illegality is properly predictable in its radical defects. It is a situation contrary to the principle of law. As against this, an irregularity as defined lexicographically, is want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceedings. It consist in omitting the rule something that is necessary for due and orderly conducting of a suit or doing it in an unreasonable time or improper manner. 6.5.3 A thing irregularly done is not regularly done. It is not in conformity of rule or principle. The concepts "illegal", "irregular" and "procedurally irregular", are often understood in terms of their degree which they bear to be not in conformity with rule of particular course of action. The illegality is a breach of law in substantive way and in its high degree which will taint and vitiate the action. 6.5.4 One who commits "illegality" has to be denied the assertion of his right and he stands disentitled to relief in law. Irregularity, as noticed, is breach of procedure of rule or some orderly conduct but not of such nature which could be said to be in the nature of a debilitating defect. It is pardonable in law. The concept of procedural irregularity is indicative of lapse of - 18 - minor nature in procedure which could not affect adversely rights of a party, nor would exceptionally reverse the obligation of the other side. 6.6 In the present case if the aspect that the No-Confidence Motion had the seal of the Panchayat Development Officer, it was never an illegality but at the best could be viewed as a procedural abrasion. 6.7 In view of the discussions and the reasons supplied above, the order of dismissal of the petition and refusal to grant relief to the petitioner by learned Single Judge did not book any error. The impugned order warrants no interference. 7. The appeal is meritless. It is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KPS