RAMAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. G. Shivanna, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE notice dated 21-6-2006 vide Annexure-D issued under Rule 3 (2) of the Kamataka panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram panchayat) Rules, 1994, is under challenge. The said notice discloses that the meeting is fixed on 10-7-2006 to discuss the No-confidence Motion moved against the petitioner who is the adhyaksha of Nagalapura Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notice issued under Rule 3 (2) of the said Rules, shall accompany the copy of the no-confidence Motion moved. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of mallamma v. State of Kamataka and Ors. ILR2002 KAR 4253 , 2002 (5)Karlj254 , in support of the said contention. However, the said contention is opposed by the learned Government Advocate.

(3.) RELEVANT portion of Rule 3 of the said Rules reads thus: