K. LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned meeting notice dtd. 9/5/2022 is not in compliance with the latter portion of the first proviso to sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 49 of the Karnataka Gramswaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Learned counsel submits that as per the said proviso, at least ten days notice is required to be given before the members could move the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994.

(2.) Learned counsel would submit that recently this Court has referred the issue to a larger bench in its order dtd. 10/6/2022 in W.P. No. 102077/2022. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the contesting respondents do not wish to wait for a decision or ruling in this regard. On the other hand, it is submitted that a fresh notice will be issued by the aggrieved members of the Gram Panchayat complying both the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 49 and thereafter move the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. Learned counsel would therefore submit that the writ petition may be allowed while setting aside the impugned meeting notice.

(3.) Placing on record the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents who are the members of Kogali Gram Panchayat, writ petition is allowed. The impugned meeting notice dtd. 9/5/2022 issued by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Harapanahalli, is hereby quashed and set aside.