VENKATESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant cases, the petitioners are assailing the correctness of the notice dated 29.4.2014 issued by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-A and further sought for a writ of certiorari, quashing the representation dated 23.4.2014 submitted by some of the members of respondent No. 3 produced at Annexure-E.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, petitioners 1 and 2 are the members of respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayath and petitioner No. 3 is the President of respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayath. Some of the members submitted a representation moving 'No-confidence' against petitioner No. 3 and these petitioners have received notice without accompanied by 'No-confidence motion' moved by some of the members of respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayath, which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that some of the members of respondent No. 3-Gram Panchayath have moved 'No-confidence' motion against petitioner No. 3, which they are not entitled to do so. Taking these relevant factors into consideration, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioners Sri. K. Raghupathy would submit that the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 2 is liable to be set aside in view of Section 49 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 has not complied with the statutory and mandatory provisions while issuing notice dated 29.4.2014 at Annexure-A. The said notice is violative of Section 49 read with Rule 3 of the Act. As per the said Act & Rules, fifteen days' prior notice should be issued, which has not been complied with. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 2, fixing the date for considering 'No-confidence motion' moved by some of the members fixed on 15.5.2014, is liable to be set aside.