VENAKTESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the petition on the ground that when the petitioners are seeking for quashing of the representation, they ought to have impleaded the persons, who made the representation as parties to the writ petition and that having not been done, the writ petitions are not maintainable. The second prayer in the writ petitions is for quashing of the representation. The representation is made on 23.04.2014. The persons who made representation were not impleaded as parties and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that without impleading them, the writ petition is not maintainable.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the main prayer was for quashing of the notice dated 29.04.2014 issued to consider a No-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha.

(3.) The grievance of the appellants is that a similar meeting had been called for on 05.02.2014 and in the said meeting not a single member of the Panchayath had attended and therefore within one year from that date, no meeting for considering a No-confidence motion could have been called for. Reliance is placed on Section 49 proviso 3 read with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayath) Rules, 19.94.