MANJULA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, sitting Adhyaksha of Yamare Grama Panchayat, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, feeling aggrieved by a notice dated 7-2-2014, given under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules'), fixing 6-3-2014 as the date for considering no-confidence motion, presented against her, has preferred this writ petition. Sri Padmanabha R. Mahale, learned Senior Advocate, firstly, contended that the 2nd respondent has no authority to call for the meeting before expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of Annexure-C from the members of the Grama Panchayat and Annexure-D is in violation of proviso under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). Secondly, Annexure-D having not been accompanied with the proposed motion of no-confidence and there being non-compliance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, in view of the decision in Mallamma v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2002 5 KarLJ 254impugned notice is arbitrary and illegal. Thirdly, there being non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Rules, impugned notice calls for interference.

(2.) Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA, on the other hand, contended that petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this petition on the premise of violation of the requirements of the Rules, in view of the decision in Abdul Razak v. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere and Others, 2005 1 KarLJ 230. He submitted that the 2nd respondent having received a requisition vide Annexure-C, from 16 out of 19 members of the Panchayat, has performed his statutory duty and has given the meeting notice vide Annexure-D, to all the members of the Panchayat and hence, no interference is called for.

(3.) Sri V. Viswanatha Setty, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 to 11 and 14 to 17, adopted the submissions made by Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief.