PUTTALINGAMMA Vs. ASST COMMISISONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is at present occupying the post Adhyaksha at Kesthur village in Maddur Taluk of Mandya District. The petitioner is faced with a no coincidence motion which was been moved by the members of this Panchayat and in respect of which the Assistant Commissioner has fixed a meeting to be held on 13. 8. 2004 is questioning the legality of this notice, the present writ petition is filed contending that the notice is not a in conformity with the requirement of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayatraj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules 1994.

(2.) SRI Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the notice which is dt. 15. 7. 2004 fixing the meeting to be on 13. 8. 2004 had been served on the petitioner only by 31. 7. 2004. It is the submission of the learned counsel that every member of the Panchayat should be given 15 days clear notice of the fixation of the meeting and reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice by the petitioner, 15 days interval is not available and as such submission is that the notice is not in conformity with requirements of the Rules.

(3.) LEARNED counsel in this regard places reliance on the reported decisions of this Court in MUNIYAPPA AND OTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (ILR 1997 KAR 677) followed in the case of SANGAPPA VS. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER BIJAPUR DISTRICT (ILR 2004 KAR 1103 ). Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that whenever the mandatory requirements of Rule 3 is not complied, the notice automatically becomes bad and is liable to be quashed and if so, the meeting as proposed cannot be held and if at all fresh dates will have to be fixed etc. ,