High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Eramma W/O. Basavaraju vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Eramma W/O. Basavaraju vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 9 March, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath


:3 was HIGH couar or KAREATAKA, aAN§a:§§a *x

DATED THIS was srn BAX or MERGE goosf “R

THE HOR’BLE MR. 3UsmI¢aVé$$i M3iiMAr3\ wm”‘

w.p.No.57ee’éfi’2oo9§LneRs$y:””

BE’1’WEE.N:

$MT.ERAMMA,4? yzans, ;

W70 aAsAvnRAJv, A»w. = — a_ 4
vnnsxnanr, aaga pamcaaxam or A_ ‘”
G.B.SARAG8K, H;D,xorE1:ALu3, “‘”””
Mysoaz n:3wRxc@,g ‘.,_= V* “I ‘
Rfaw Karmcfipfipx vz;;Asg;~* ;

G.B.SARAfiUR¢?OS£,_HAHRAPURAWKOBLI,
H.D.KOTE TR§UK,fl¥SGRE DISTRICT.

V1 1.” fluV\ *.’=.” pzrxwxonma

(BY sax mxumaflma figai DEVATHE, AnvncAmE)

“%3fi”ASéis§A§m commssxoama,

‘aU§Asva’a$B§nzv:s:ou,
. RESPO2%’§E2~¥T

(BY sfiW,K§fi.NAGASKRI, HCGP)

K *=» ‘r§:s way. FILED manna aawxcns 226 or was

‘¢¢ns?1yuw1om or INDIA yo QUASH was NOTICE xssvnn
._ B? was FIRST Rzspounanr earns 24.2.2909
“< W{3sN2xURs~E} Ann arc.

W”

‘ -sa:w3 3.55: z’..i3va..lid.V” “””

__o:E tkzefgfiaat that the: mating is yet to be held.
V _” ‘-temns of Saation 49 bf Karnataica iianchayath
T” Raj act, 1/3 members are sufficient to call for a

Huziyeetixzg of 11¢ confidence. In the instant case,

2
‘1’HI$ ‘i*3.P. COMIBXG ON FOR PRELIMIHARY

THIS BAY, THE CO'{3’R’I’ MABE THE FOLLOWING:– .V
The petitioner seeks__…..f9r off ‘
cextioraxi to qfiiash the
passed by the 1″ respoz1c’§r:–i;: V’ ‘ VA V V ‘
2 . Learned counselg: péifiitioner
contends that the V _ cal3;i¥zg fox a.
meeting of ‘no .@§1.e<.':ting' the

Adhyaksha a.=;i<34.' §f;¥_g'.»'ar311:f'§LraJ~:s?ci}=I. Panchayath of

saragur _vi;13'.;=1gg;, .VHe§jgadad¢.~1ranakote Taluk, is bad
in 1aw;_ fie 'ffirfihéiadééhtends that 2/3 of the

rrnexthers hiéiveyv n<$'t ."si'<.¥;.ned the resolution and the

'_ Idgntention of the Jieaxned czounsek, for

i§he{ 1aetii:.'§§ig;21:ar is not sustainable in law, in View

more than 12 ztmrbers have sought for: a zneetizzg.

«W