CHANNAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-C notice dated 08.03.2019 by which Assistant Commissioner has fixed the date of No-Confidence Motion as 25.03.2019. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is that notice dated 08.03.2019 has been served on the petitioner while affixing the notice on the petitioner's residence by the Bill Collector and Village Accountant who were deputed by third respondent.

(2.) Learned Additional Government Advocate furnished the records. Perused the same. There is no iota of evidence relating to despatch of the notice to the petitioner till 11.03.2019. Thus, one has to draw inference petitioner has been served notice on 11.03. 2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents-caveators vehemently contended that petitioner has been served and there is a compliance of Rule 3(2) of the Kamatak Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short the 'Rules'). It was also contended that Division Bench of this court in Munirathnamma's case in Writ Appeal No. 1114/2006 (LB) decided on 18.01.2007 (Reported in 2007 (2) AIR Kar R 357), it is held that courts cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of violation of any procedural aspect. Further he retied on Gouri Shankar's case in Writ Petition No. 100123/2014 (LB-ELE) decided on 08.01.2014. In support of the aforesaid contentions the procedural aspect cannot be interfered in particularly Rule 3(2) of Rules, 1994.