SANGAREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The elected Member of sixth respondent - Grampanchayat has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the impugned notice at Annexure-E dtd. 16/5/2022 its bearing No. 07/2022-23 issued by the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and 9.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he along with 10 other Grampanchayat Members had filed a requisition as provided under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994 before the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner and pursuant to the same, the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner had issued the impugned meeting notice under Rule 3(2) of the of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules 1994, fixing the meeting of the elected Members of the Grampanchayat on 4/6/2022 for the purpose of moving no confidence motion against the seventh respondent, who is the Adyaksha of the sixth respondent -Grampanchayat. After the meeting notices were served on the Members of the sixth respondent -Grampanchayat, the seventh respondent allegedly kidnapped the eighth respondent so as to prevent her from attending the meeting that was scheduled to be held on 4/6/2022, pursuant to the impugned meeting notice dtd. 16/5/2022. In this regard, a criminal complaint was lodged as against the seventh respondent before the jurisdictional police and first information report was registered as against seventh respondent herein in Crime No.22/2022 for the offence punishable under Ss. 365 and 109 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. It is under these circumstances the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the impugned meeting notice.