RAJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has called in question the validity of order dtd. 27/9/2022 passed in WP No.103239/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) The said writ petition was filed calling in question the validity of Notice dtd. 11/8/2022 vide Annexure-A, whereby notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening the meeting to consider the motion of 'No Confidence' on 29/8/2022.

(3.) The facts that are made out as is relevant for the present purpose is that, the petitioner was elected as a Member to the Shidaginmol Gram Panchayat from 30/12/2020, subsequently, was elected as President of said Gram Panchayat. The application was submitted moving motion of 'No Confidence' against the petitioner and as against the application moved on 17/6/2022, the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.102408/2022 and eventually, said writ petition came to be allowed and notice dtd. 27/6/2022 was set-aside reserving liberty to the members to move fresh notice in compliance of first Proviso to Sec. 49(1) of the Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'Act'). It is submitted that thereby fresh complaint came to be made and the application was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 4/8/2022 with a prayer to move the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. It is submitted that on the very same day, i.e. on 4/8/2022, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice on 11/8/2022 calling for meeting on 29/8/2022. The said action came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge on various grounds including that the time period prescribed under the first proviso to Sec. 49(1) of the Act requires that the Assistant Commissioner shall wait till expiry of 10 days before issuance of notice convening the meeting.