R. KRISHNEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As directed on 06.10.2020, the learned AGA has secured instructions from the Deputy Commissioner as to whether the communication dated 19.09.2020 at Annexure-B regarding withdrawal of the notice of motion of no confidence was received by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted, it is true that the petitioners have submitted m, communication dated 19.09.2020 in Tappal Section of the office of Deputy Commissioner. However, it is submitted that before submitting the letter of withdrawal, the same should have been brought to the notice of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat and an acknowledgment for having submitted the same to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat is not found in the communication.

(2.) Learned counsel Sri. S. Basavaraju, appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no such requirement under law of obtaining acknowledgment of the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat.

(3.) Nevertheless, in the considered opinion of this Court the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are permitted to attend the meetings scheduled tomorrow i.e., on 08.10.2020 at 11.am. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to find out from each of the member of Taluk Panchayat who have written the communication dated 19.09.2020 as to whether they have signed the said communication. On ascertaining that the eleven persons who have signed the communication dated 19.09.2020 have infact affixed their signatures to the said communication, the Deputy Commissioner may drop the meeting in view of the withdrawal of the motion of no confidence by the persons, who initially made the request for motion of no confidence. The Deputy Commissioner may record the said aspects and thereafter drop the motion of no confidence.