SMT. AKKATAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be an elected President of the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.4 to 16 moved a requisition for a meeting of no-confidence against him. In pursuance of the said notice of no-confidence submitted by respondent Nos.4 to 16, which was on 15.02.2018, the 2nd respondent i.e., the Assistant Commissioner convened a meeting to discuss no-confidence motion which held on 26.06.2018. On the said date, the descenting members, i.e., respondent Nos.4 to 16 could able to place their no-confidence against the present petitioner. As such, the 2nd respondent vide his order No.GP/CR-36/2017-18 dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure-C) declared that no-confidence motion was passed successfully, as such, the post of the president of Gram Panchayat stands vacated. It is against the said impugned notification of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(2.) Though this petition is listed to consider I.A.1 of 2018 filed by respondents seeking vacating of the interim order of stay, with the consent from both sides, the matter was taken up for its final disposal.

(3.) The only contention of the petitioner as well as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the no-confidence motion meeting that was held on 26.06.2018 was beyond 30 days, which is in gross violation of sub rule (2) of Rule (3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth, for brevity, referred to as the 'Karnataka Panchayat Raj no-confidence Motion Rules') and as such, holding of the said no-confidence motion meeting, is a meeting at all. According to the petitioner, there was no interim order operating against holding of any such meeting within 30 days from the date of service of no-confidence motion notice by the members, which was on 15.02.2018.