Sri. Vishwanatha V.G. Reddy vs The State of Karnataka and The Nangli Grama Panchayath Nangli Village

Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Sri N.B. Vishwanath, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner, who is the President of Nangli Grama Panchayath, Mulbagal Taluk has called into question the no-confidence motion proposed against him.

Sri Narendra, the Learned Counsel appearing for Sri M.V. Chandrashekara Reddy, for the petitioner submits that the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was defeated and that for the second time similar proceedings are initiated within one year. He also submits that the present motion is not supported by two-thirds of the members of the Grama. Panchayath.

I do not propose to go into the legality of the impugned notice. This petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of locus standi. this Court, in the case of Abdul Razak v. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, Sub-Division, Davanagere and Others, reported in 2005 (1) KLJ 230 KLJ 230 has held that the writ petition filed by Adhyaksha challenging the validity of the notice on the grounds of procedural irregularities and its improper service is not entertainable. The right to remove the Adhyaksha from his office is a right conferred on the members. The Adhyaksha has no locus standi to challenge the notice. What removes him from office is not the notice, but the motion against him passed with the requisite majority. Any irregularity in the notice is not required to he enquirt-.4 into at the instance of the Adhyaksha.

It is also beneficial to refer to this Court''s decision in the case of Smt. Sathyavathi J.M. v. The Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur and Another, reported in 2010 (3) KU 278, wherein it is held that a person holding the office of Adhyaksha has no locus standi to challenge the notice; the notice is only a part of the procedure prescribed for effectuating the right to remove the Adhyaksha from the office by passing the no-confidence motion.

Further, in the case of Smt. Malaprabha Shrikant Madar, Occ. Chairman Vs. The Asst. Commissioner and The Gram Panchayat Ninjinkodal, it is held that the no-confidence motion proceedings cannot be examined from the angle of the petitioner, who is the Adhyaksha, as though he has the right in the matter and that right in some way violated and infringed by the non-compliance with the requirements of the rules.

If the petitioner has to continue as the President, it is oniy by regaining the confidence of the majority of members of the local body and not by raising the technical pleas. This petition is rejected on the short ground of locus standi. No order as to costs.