MEENAKSHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner called in question the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayatraj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, '1994 Rules'), fixing the date for moving 'No-confidence Motion' against the petitioner No.1.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the Adhyaksha of the Linganakhana Doddi Grama Panchayat and the second petitioner is the member of the said Grama Panchayat. There are 21 members representing the said Grama Panchayat. Out of 21 members, 19 members have given representation to the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(1) of the 1994 Rules with an intention to move 'No-confidence Motion' against petitioner No.1 as per Annexure-B dtd. 7/9/2022. Pursuant to the said representation submitted by respondent Nos. 6 to 23, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice as per Annexure-C dtd. 9/9/2022, fixing the date of the meeting as 27/9/2022 for moving 'No-confidence Motion' against the Adhyaksha, i.e., the petitioner No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Sri Arunkumar Amaragundappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that as per Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules, the Assistant Commissioner has to issue not less than fifteen days of clear notice of the meeting in Form No.II to all the members. The Assistant Commissioner has issued notice on 9/9/2022 and the same has been served to the petitioner on 15/9/2022. The meeting has been fixed on 27/9/2022. The Assistant Commissioner has not given fifteen days clear notice to the petitioner and the impugned notice at Annexure-C is contrary to Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of C.PUTTAWWAMY vs. SMT.PREMA reported in AIR 1992 Kar. 356. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.