SAVATRI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being the President of Gram Panchayat VK Salgar has filed this petition challenging a notice dtd. 30/12/2024 issued by the respondent No.3 proposing to hold a meeting of the members on 21/1/2025 to consider the motion of no confidence.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the members had earlier moved a motion of no confidence and a notice dtd. 11/11/2024 was issued to the petitioner proposing to hold a meeting of the members on 30/11/2024. This notice was challenged by the petitioner herein in WP No.203367/2024 and this Court in terms of the order dtd. 28/11/2024 stayed the notice of no Confidence. The interim order of stay was extended from time to time. During the pendency of the writ petition, the members again moved a no confidence motion against the petitioner by submitting a representation in form No.1, before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 without awaiting the outcome of WP No.203367/2024 fixed a meeting on 21/1/2025. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said notice dtd. 30/12/2024.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the proceedings were stayed by this Court in WP No.203367/2024, then the procedure as contemplated under proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1994 for brevity) must have been complied. He submits that the respondent No.3 must have awaited the vacation of the interim order of stay and thereafter must have fixed a fresh date of meeting within 30 days from the date of vacation of stay. He submits that the respondent No.3 has issued a notice even before the order of stay was dissolved and even before the writ petition was disposed of. Therefore, he contends that the procedure adopted by the respondent No.3 in issuing the notice dtd. 31/12/2024 falls foul of proviso to rule 3(2) of the Rules 1994.