SUMITRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the Adhyaksha of the Parmanandwadi Gram Panchayat, Raibhag Taluk, Belagavi District, is aggrieved by the impugned Meeting Notice dtd. 28/6/2022 issued by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District scheduling a meeting on 14/7/2022 to consider the motion of no-confidence moved by the members of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) Having regard to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayath ) Rules, 1994, this Court finds that there is compliance of 15 clear days notice. However, in W.P.No.102077/2022, vide order dtd. 13/6/2022, this Court referred the question as to whether the latter part of the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, mandating at least 10 days notice is to be issued to the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat or the Assistant Commissioner AND whether such notice is mandatory or directory in nature?.

(3.) However, learned Counsel Smt. Veena Hegde, appearing for the contesting respondents No.6 to 15 submits that the petition may be allowed and members of the Gram Panchayat may be permitted to issue a fresh notice in compliance of both requirements as noticed by this Court. On the other hand, it is submitted that a fresh notice will be issued by the aggrieved members of the Gram Panchayat complying both the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 49 of the Act and in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994.