,. by.
1 W.}?. No. 6005772010 (LB--RES)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED TI-IIS THE 7TH DAY 01%' JANUARY,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:eE..H.G_3}éAVé;J15}és§i"'
WP. No. 60057/26-10 :{1}.e:RC1é:'sI"~
Between: I I I
I-Ianarnappa, __
S /0 Dyavappa Barakarm
Aged about 48 years} _ 7
Occ: Agriculture. V
R/0. I-Iullikeri (S.P),:.*" --
Tq. Bada111iv,'D.i si--: BagaIko.t. I ._ PETITIONER
(By Yéiéix-ani'i--,,A:1v.) '
ANS'; _ _ .. . _
1. 'II}1eIDvepIur__y ACe1'nr~hissioner,
' = _ Baga1kaot;"
"'I'I?iee Chief Iirrecutive Officer,
.. V -I "Z.iI1.a Parichayat,
' .._"-E'g1ga~lI<V:ot.
A .~ Asst. Commissioner,
. rfiagalkot Sub--Division,
' Bagaikot.
I r _ The Secretary,
Grama Panchayat,
2 WP. No. 6005772010 (L13--RElS)
Parvati, Tq: Badarni. .. RESPONDEIQTS
(By Smt.Vid_\/avathi, AGA for R1 and R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articie's.:2i26"&'22Z oi' .
the Constitution of India, praying to .quash4t'he«_irnpn*gned
notice issued by respondent no.3 :da.ted'es.l9..l'2.20:C'9 'aide
Annexure–E, and etc. ” ‘ . « . 2
This petition coming*.o’n~~.for pfel.irr1ina’:jyRh,eVafing this V
day, the court made the fo11oWi_ng:_u
I-leards Adhyaksha of
Parvati against the
notice li§inhexure–E) issued by
«V _’ Vuhssistant Commissioner,
‘Bagalkot; By the said notice
tlf1’e*Assistant’Cornmissioner has fixed the meeting on
consider the moving of no–confidence
A _ the petitioner.
I have heard the learned Counsel
A. ;a__ppeai”ing for the petitioner and the learned
“‘V.i'(}’overnment Advocate appearing for respondents I
‘C and 3. E’
3 W.P. No. 60057/2010 (LB-RES)
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the notice is violative.j”ofT the
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of
against Adhyaksha and Upadhyal:s_hia~.::. off
Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
Government Advocate esubmitsidlthat cijuefistionifl
raised is covered by theiiijittdgment~_ofItii1iSii7fi30urt in
ABDUL RAZAK vs’ AiS.SliSTA1i\tT«.COM1i)IIiSSIC)NER,
DAVANAGERE (20(A)A5.(i1′)-Kain{,,J'”‘;’2~fi§Ci§§_
thei7lea3*newdiGio5.€eI’nArr1se:nt ‘Advocate. As could be seen
from tiheii jvudsc-;rn’en’tv,.iiithis court has held that the
v_c1i’scr_e’t§onarjf”j1lrisdiction of this court under Article
‘ ,.i’2-2j6a__ofithe”Constitution of India is not warranted in
i’ . fat/our asiperson like the petitioner who is himself to
face ‘the no~confidence motion and who is the sitting
Aczlhyaksha of the Panchayat.
Bit
~/
4 W.P. No. 6005′?/2010 {LB–RES)
5. in View of the above, the writ petiticn is
Iiabie to be dismissed and is aocordingiy ~ V
Petition dismissed.
sub/~ 'V d