B.C. LOKESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is the Upadhyaksha of respondent No.3 - Bengaluru Grama Panchayat and has called in question the correctness of the notice at Annexure-E, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has convened a meeting of the members at 11.00 a.m. on 12/1/2024 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

(2.) The only contention raised by the petitioner is that his term of office is 30 months as statutorily mandated and he is at the fag end of his term with 6 1/2 months and at such point of time, motion of no confidence ought not to be entertained. It is contended that the signatures of the members who have signed the notice at Sl. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19 for no confidence at Annexure-B, do no tally with the signatures at Annexure-A, which is the extract of the meeting proceedings book. It is further submitted that an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded as contemplated under Sec. 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate would point out that insofar as the allegation regarding signatures is concerned, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.23, the Panchayat Development Officer has sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner dtd. 16/12/2023, in which a specific finding is recorded that the signatures of the members tally when compared with the signatures appended in the proceedings register.