GURABASAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AT INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has sought for a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the notice issued by respondent dated: 17th August 2011 bearing No. Chunavane/CR-17/11-12, vide Annexure-A.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she has been duly elected as Adhyaksha of the Gabasavalagi Gram Panchayat, Indi Taluk, Gulbarga District, on 16th June 2010.Being Adhyaksha of the said Gram Panchayat, she has been taking all necessary steps to provide all the facilities to the public in general, who come within the jurisdiction of the said Gram Panchayat and has been discharging her duties effectively and sincerely. When it was noticed by her that some of the members have taken the benefits from the Gram Panchayat and drawing the amount in their names for the works executed and some of the members have even acquired disqualification under Section 12 of the Panchayat Raj Act, she has tried to stop them from doing so. In view of the same, some of the members who are inimical to her, have moved the motion of No-confidence against her in the post of Adhyaksha. On the basis of the requisition submitted by 2/3rd members of the Gram Panchayat, the respondent herein has issued the impugned notice of no-confidence dated 17th August, 2011 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the said notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, petitioner has presented this petition.

(3.) WITH regard to the submission of the Learned Counsel for petitioner that, notice was served only on 26th August, 2011 and there is no clear 15 days notice, Learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent submits that the said submission cannot be sustained for the reason that, as a matter of fact, in pursuance of the direction issued by the respondent, the Village Accountant of the Gram Panchayat one, Sri Shanmukhappa has started serving the notice to all the members of the Gram Panchayat from 20th August, 2011 and he has personally visited the petitioner's house on 20th August, 2011 and on that day, she has refused to take the notice, on the ground that, that day being a Saturday, is an inauspicious day for her and she has asked the Village Accountant to serve the notice on Monday, on 22nd August, 2011. Again, when he tried to serve the notice on 22nd August, 2011 on the petitioner, the petitioner, on one or the other pretext, evaded to receive the notice. Thereafter, when she was told that he would return the notice the next day to the Assistant Commissioner with his report that she is trying to avoid the service of notice petitioner, on the next day, on 26th August, 2011, at about 8.00 A.M., along with her son came to his house and collected the notice. Therefore, he submits that the conduct of the petitioner clearly proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, she has intentionally and deliberately evaded the service of notice on her and therefore the prayer sought in the petitioner is a liable to be rejected at the threshold. He also submits that the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for petitioner is of no assistance to him in this petition and the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely different from the one on hand. In fact, this Court has consistently held that Adhyaksha has no power or locus standi to question the no-confidence motion moved against him or her nor he or she can invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, interference by this Court is uncalled for.