WP l\E0s.65909 8: 65930 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD V
DATED THIS THE 30% DAY OF OC'I'OBE;'t'{"2.54C),'_t',V'-Q11. _
BEFORE u
THE I~ION'BLE DR.JUSTICE K,BHALKTiI.A\.7A'fSAI{AA
WRIT PETITION*N.rJ_. 65 9*09;L20o9
81; w.P.No.65930/2099 (LBwRES)_'_=
BETWEEN:
Age: 45, Occ:.;4\gric1,fituref; . .
R/'0 Hulagg, '?q:VV1'Koppa1,
1. Palakshappa, S/0
Dist: Koppal. V
2. Shiali1awwa;'W[Q '\?e'erbh'ab_1fayya
Dalapathi. Mé'{,tha_ Hulagi, Te; 33 Dist Koppal. ...RESPONDENTS
[ H(B§v,r Smt. K.V1’dyavathi, Add}. Govt. Advocate)
WP N0s.6S909 8: 65930 of 2009
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 85
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
notice dated 14.10.2009 issued by the 13% respondepnt
produced at Annexure»~B and also quash
dated 14.10.2009 issued by the 1st ae.4’jfeepe:r;§dedt’–e
produced at Annexure–C.
These Writ petitions coming on for’–.pr’e1inii–nary’._V
hearing this day, the Courtiimaade the
The petiti0.n’ers,:=__ Ad3}.akshai«:.’9»fl.C1:V.filipadhyaksha of
the 235″ iiéanchayat, are before this
Court under 227 of the Constitution of
India. prayingiiior. ..qL1ashing the impugned notices dated
V’ –.1A4′;i’3.0.2’009..0n thelhfiile of respondent No.1 at Annexuresw
C’ “brief facts of the case leading to fiiing of
\,these “writ petitions may be stated as under:-
WP Nos.65909 & 65930 of 2009
The Respondent No.1 has issued notices o_f___’no-
confidence’ motion as per Annexures-B 85
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively V’
meeting on 02.11.2009 at 12 o’ clock.wit’hii1ox%g it
confidence motion againstat
Upadhyaksha. The impugnectfinotices 82; V
C served on the petiti:c=nerssvai”‘e:’. in ‘these Writ
petitions.
3. Leaiined i::::C:t)_l_.1,11’iS:@1_ 1fo__1′ thefpetitiioners submits that
respondent of ‘r1o–confidence’
rnotiorigco:mrening..ithe”me’eting on 02.11.2009 at 12 o’
clock for7r_noVing_ “no”–confidence’ motion against the
V. Adh.3z§gks’l1a ‘Uipatjlhyaksha. it is submitted that there
shall_b.ev’indiVidual notice. It is also contended that a
written notteeiesect intention to make the motion under the
‘iproviisioins Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj
uft’\cti,l”~1.99’3, shall be in Form I signed by not less than
‘ one-third of total number of members together with a
Ln
WP NoS.65909 & 65930 of 2009
copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person
by any two of the members signing the noticei:’tio’f-tP:»e
Assistant Commissioner. But, in the instazitfeaseiei it
is Violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rat};
(Motion of No–confidence it
Upadhyaksha of Grama it
Section 49 of the i?e1j” Aot, 1993
and, therefore, the .i:’t:tiiiAI1neXures–B 82;
C are liable to eejittqftueeiieci.
4, eeee JA:1’eiit’ienai1_MGovernment Advocate
submits, th’er.e”is’:’noi_1’1ege1ii.ty or infirmity in the notices.
She further__4sv,bmi._t.si.th9tt;notices issued at Annexures–B
85 (ads per (nth-eiprescribed Form H under Rule 3(2) of
the–» Panchayat Raj (Motion of No–confidence
ege’iiisti”‘ ‘i(i;t;1:hy.eti<sha and Upadhyaksha of Grama
jVPanohaj?a.:t).ixRu1es, 1994 and there is no Vioiation of
Section 49 of the Act or Rule 3 of the Karnataka
Petnchayat Raj (Motion of No–confidence against
L
WP Nos.65909 8: 65930 of 2009
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Pancheiyat)
Rules. It is further contended that as per the
reported in 2005(1) Kar.L.J. 230 (Abdul
Assistant Commissioner, Dam-1?i'ager'e–'_4i' H H K V
Davanagere and others),
and Upadhyaksha have noVriéii"tbto V
of 'no–confidence'motion'. A. i it 1
5. According to-” Karnataka
Panchayat of [No–uconfidence against
Adhyaksha Grama Panchayat)
Rules, {when to make the motion has
to be subméiéttevdiito the” ftssistant Commissioner and not
the ‘and____§}padhyaksha. Therefore, there is no
*.irivo1ationv’o1’«.i1.§ul_e 3 of the Rules and Section 49 of the
Raj Act. Apart from that, the
flnotice zistpertaining to moving of ‘no–confidence’ motion
‘i.j:’agaiii.st H the present petitioners–Adhyal<sha and
Lipadhyaksha. In View of the decision rendered in Abdul
L,
WP NOS.65909 3: 65930 of 2009
Razak's case supra, the petitioners have no right to
challenge the impugned notice.
kuewxemnnbmhthewfitpaamnsgmgmfithgr.”
are hereby dismissed.
Granted three weeks-Jtime “to V file; of ‘V
appearance by the Eearnetdii ‘Government
*~adi;gd”jf.\
Advocate.
pw_y -s_’fla ha/”
e 3eooE