ANANTHANARAYANA K.S. Vs. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter is coming up for a preliminary hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims to be a elected member of respondent-Gram Panchayath and is aggrieved by a meeting notice which was issued to the petitioner through whatsapp convening the meeting on 17/3/2023 at 11.00 a.m. It appears that the petitioner raised an objection that the meeting notice was not issued in accordance with law by a competent authority. It appears that the petitioner gave a representation to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath dtd. 13/3/2023 calling for explanation as to how such a meeting was convened contrary to the provisions contained in Sec. 52(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as ' the Act ' for short).

(2.) Again the petitioner gave a representation dtd. 15/3/2023 to the Panchayath Development Officer of the Gram Panchayath while marking a copy to the Adyaksha of the Grama Panchayath, Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Magadi and Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath, Ramanagara, calling for an explanation as to how the meeting convened on 17/3/2023 was postponed, and a meeting was held on 21/3/2023 without following due process of law. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath made a communication to the Panchayath Development Officer of the Gram Panchayath, calling upon him to furnish information regarding the meeting convened on 17/3/2023 and held on 21/3/2023 and to take action on the representation given by the petitioner. Nevertheless, when no action was taken, the petitioner filed an appeal under Sec. 269 of the Act, before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, praying that the entire records regarding the general body meeting held on 21/3/2023 may be called for; to set aside the meeting notices dtd. 12/3/2023 and 15/3/2023; to set aside the entire resolution passed by the Gram Panchayath on 21/3/2023 and to initiate an enquiry against the Panchayath Development Officer and the Secretary of the respondent Gram Panchayath for violation of provisions contained in Sec. 52 (3) of the Act.

(3.) The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 25/4/2023 stating that an appeal under Sec. 269 could be filed only against a original order or resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath. No such order or resolution was produced by the petitioner while filing the appeal. Therefore, only on the said ground that no such original order or resolution of the Grama Panchayat was produced by the petitioner or challenged, the appeal was rejected.