1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO.20111 OF 2014 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.MADAMMA W/O.DODDA BADRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MEMBER, MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: NABROAD VILLAGE MARTALLI ANCHE TALUK DISTRICT - 571440.

2. ANTHONY SWAMY S/O.SELVA NAYAGAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: SULWADI GRAMA MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571440.

3. K SESU KUMAR S/O.KOLANDAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

2

MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: PALIMADU VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

4. SMT ELIL ARULSELVI W/O.MADALAI MUTHU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: SANDANAPALYA VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

5. GOVINDASWAMY S/O.PERUMAL CHETTIYAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: SANDANAPALYA VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

6. LURDASWAMY S/O.STANISIAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: SANDANAPALYA GRAMA

3

MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

7. P VENAKTARAMAN S/O.PONNAPPAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: PALIMEDU VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

8. SMT MANIKYAMMAL W/O ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: KEERAPATHI GRAMA MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

9. P SHIVANNA S/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: KADABUR VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

4

10. BALAIAH S/O.ARDANARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: HALE MARATALLI VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

11. C GOVINDARAJ S/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: HALE MARTALLI VILLAGE MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

12. SMT SUMATHI W/O.KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: ALADAMARA GRAMA MARTALLI POST, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

13. SMT PACHIYAMMAL W/O.VEERAPPAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

5

MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: VODDARA DODDI GRAMA MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

14. MT PAKIYAMMAL W/O.MANICKAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MEMBER MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: KADABUR GRAMA MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440. ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI: D S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

2. FRANCIS ALIAS SETU S/O.RAYAPPAN AGED: MAJOR PRESIDENT MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/O: SULWADI VILLAGE

6

MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440.

3. MARTALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH BY ITS SECRETARY MARTALLI POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571440. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: D NAGARAJ, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CALL FOR MEETING AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF REQUISITION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND HOLD A ‘NO CONFIDENCE’ MEETING AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 BY FIXING A DATE AND TO AWARD COSTS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The requisition dated 17.3.2014 to call for a meeting to consider the motion of ‘no confidence’ against the President of

Martalli Grama Panchayath, which when slated to be considered in the meeting fixed on 21.4.2014, there was no quorum within one hour after the time appointed for the

7 meeting, hence the meeting stood dissolved and the notice given stood lapsed in the light of Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka

Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules,

1994. In that view of the matter, writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to call for the meeting afresh on the basis of the requisition dated 17.3.2014 does not arise. Writ petition must fail.

2. Although Sri.D.S.Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when a requisition was made to the first respondent to call for a fresh meeting of ‘no confidence motion’ based upon another representation, which when rejected by the order, Annexure-G, has filed I.A.1/2014 for amendment of the writ petition.

3. Admittedly, the causes of action for the writ petition and I.A.1/2014 are wholly different. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-G order, is a separate cause of action for which petitioners have to question the same in an

8 appropriate legal proceeding. I.A.1/2014 is accordingly rejected. Writ petition dismissed.

4. The Registry to return the originals of the documents annexed to I.A.1/2014 to the petitioners.

Sd/- JUDGE

KM