RAMAPPA Vs. ASSISSTANT COMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YET another writ petition by an incumbent Adhyaksha, of Tuggaladoni gram panchayat in kushtagi taluk of Koppal district, who has questioned the legality of the notice issued by the assistant commissioner fixing the date of the meeting to be on 30-10-2008 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) for the purpose of moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner.

(2.) THE grounds of challenge as submitted by Sri Ravi S. Balikai, learned counsel, is that the requirements of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha & Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, the Rules) are not met; that the notice does not appear to have been presented by at least two members personally to the assistant commissioner as required by Rule 3(1) of the Rules; that even a cursory examination of Annexure-D, a communication addressed by the secretary of the gram panchayat to the assistant commissioner, indicates that the requirement given in form No 1 is routed through the secretary and not personally given to the assistant commissioner, that the notice of motion and requisition in form No 1 are attached to the communication at Annexure-D and therefore obviously not presented in person and warrants interference.

(3.) NONE of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is formidable enough to warrant interference to the extent of quashing the notice fixing a metting on 30-10-2008. Assuming that there are some technical infirmities regarding non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 3, they are not meritorious enough to interfere with in a matter of this nature particularly in a democratic system, where persons in elected offices should retain their positions only by retaining the confidence of requisite number of persons to support them and not by resorting to technicalities. For this reason, this writ petition is not entertained further and dismissed at the threshold.