SMT. NAVEENA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the Adhyaksha of Undiganalu Gram Panchayat, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, has challenged the notice dtd. 11/5/2022 issued by the second respondent proposing to hold a meeting on 30/5/2022 to table the no-confidence motion moved against her.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the Adhyaksha of the aforesaid Undiganalu Gram Panchayat (for short, 'the Panchayat') on 2/2/2021. The respondent Nos.4 to 11 are the members of the Panchayat, who lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the Panchayat Development Officer on 17/2/2022 accusing her of slackness in performing her duties. The petitioner alleged that the members were obstructing her work and therefore, she submitted a representation to the respondent No.2 as well as Deputy Commissioner and requested them to permit her to carry on the development works. In connection with the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan, in terms of the letter dtd. 31/3/2022, has forwarded copy of the representation of the petitioner to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchyat, Arasikere, instructing him/her to take necessary action and submit a report. Following this, the respondent Nos.4 to 11 expressed their intention to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner and submitted the prescribed Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 on 4/5/2022 (henceforth referred to as the 'Rules of 1994'). Following this, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dtd. 11/5/2022 to the petitioner and fixed the date of meeting for considering the no-confidence motion on 30/5/2022. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition challenging the notice of the proposed no- confidence motion.

(3.) The petitioner claims that the notice of the intention to move a no-confidence motion was in continuation of the allegations made by the respondent Nos.4 to 11 against her and therefore, the same was ill- motivated. Even otherwise, she claimed that when there were allegations against her, the respondent No.2 ought not to have fixed the date for holding meeting to consider the no-confidence motion. She also contended that she had assumed charge of the office of Adhyaksha in the month of February 2021 and therefore, the no-confidence motion moved on 4/5/2022 was within fifteen months from the date of her assumption of office as Adhyaksha and as such, the same was not sustainable.