High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri.Beerappa S/O Marthandappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shri.Beerappa S/O Marthandappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 5 August, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST,  A. V

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSr1cE MofiAN»--st»:A§;T§é§i§{g:j'U:"§A1é'-, V

WRIT PETITION NO. 637§6{fi--Q(E(L§'-ELE) 1 - 

BETWEEN:

SHRI BEERAWA. S']O._MARTHt'sN;L)AF?A 

AADINAVAR'--@ xavranez,   é 
AGE 48"?EARSg, OC;:C:V'-AG-RIGULTURL'
R/O KAKOL,  RANEBENNUR _-

DIST. HAVERIV. * " .. PETITONER

(BY SR1 M';-m>AT1£;,  '

     ..... 

»  1. THE'  COMMISSIONER,

"  §«1;%\fE.i§'I'vDiS_'P_E€i('3T, HAVERI.

£2; ,1'£:HIE§f"é§é:.ciéEARY,zILLA PANCHAYAT,
'E~{AV.ERHZ§IST. HAVERI.

 3, TriE:..§{ssIsTAr~rr COMMISSIONER,

V L'§=ig'%.VERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVEIHL.

:1, T:{E SECRETARY

GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAKOL, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERL

5. GUDDAPPA N, HAFEOGAPPA,



AGE 50 YEARS, occ; AGRICULTURE,

1:2/0 KAKOL,TQ. RANEVENNUR,   

DIST. HAVERI. (IMPLEADED v/0 DATED 5/3;;393«.. u .. 
..RESPONDEN'1'S V *   "

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATHI, HCGP FORR1  "  ~ 

SR1 s.s.YAm2AM:, FOR 1MP:.EAD1'NG  A1-'P:i}iC,F;NV'l"V'V ON 7

MISC=.W.61476,/095 SR1. KS. 7?ATiL,..'ADV_. -FOR" '*<:;;<e2
SERVED.)    N 2   

THIS PETITION.-I_S F11,;::.~i;~ND13R AR'PIQLE;§ 226 AND
227 OF THE coNsT:T:.i?:'1o£=;L ejFvViN1)jz1§'PRAY1NG TO QUASH
THE NOTICE ISSUEDWBVY._Rr¥3S1%oN~§E;i»3f:f__"r4o.3 PROIDUCED
UNDER ANn;.E7$§URE ~é§A I:)»}"CE'EE)A§"'~'1S[.C{3[VV§13£) O9 Am.) ETC.

 THIS"T:é§'r;*fioN.%:V"CQM1rsG om FOR ORDERS , THIS
my 'I'Ir~IE'--C{)U_R"E":_'fV»'.i_1:%i'3# E"7.¥"I%E~E F'OLL{)WING:-

ORDER

” V “A” issued by the Assistant

Gammiasiioner, Eiavexi, calling for di$C1.1SSi0I1 on no-

.. cpnfidénce moticm moved against the petitioner is called

‘ i;fi q:1es’tion- in this Writ petifion. The date of meeting

was fixed on OQ/G7/2909 at 12.0 a.3;a.. It is contended

kw

3

by the petitioner that 15 days ciear notice

to him to participate in the said meeting-.” = :f_» ‘ ‘

2. Having regard vt_()’«-..t_;.k1e ;~m.as ‘{:f1913{1f’z£=v\.–I1.c1,~,5 tljisi %

Court ganted interim no
meeting had held ea?’ogyotf/2€;ci9,fj’% Thus this Writ
Pétitiorl, virtually’ ” ” ‘ infructuous.

Accordillgba    disposed ofi' as

having   A ---  .  

3. smt;a% the: Vre_qi1isit§_i.’L’number of members have
ahitftady .V 41%§1<)v(:{i 116' 'mtqnfidence fixation against the

péti._tio§1e2is, 3 has to be held in accordance with

law. wili be served in directing the

.Ass:i.stant " Cdmmissioner to fax the date for conve '

On the other hand, the inta-rest: of justice

if this Court fixes the date for convening the

'\¥f""'\..»~'

4
meeting. By the said process no prejudice or injustice

will be caused to any of the parties.

4. Sri. S.S. Yadrami, Advocate

appiication for impleading one of the Bo

as it may. In order to avoid any._-cof1fi1$ioJ,’i;’-

proposes to fix a date fc-i’ ‘ziiscL1tssionV oi7’V’i1o]coI;i3;dc:1eco’

motion. Accordingly, the fo1iov§fi11g order. méde.

°rW”rit ‘pcLi£ici’1’c» off as having become
fl1£rucmo~L1s.- How%:is?e::..”L’moeti11g to discuss no confidence

..movod the p=et:itior1er shall be fixed on

% ~?2} 5t# 3909 at 11.00 am. in the officc of the Gram

.’ No fresh notice need be issued to the

pctitiojiacr as well as the impleading applicant.

Sri BLS. Patil, learned counsel for rcsmndcnt

No.4 submits and undcrtakcs before the court that

\/>

5

respondent N34 would serve notices on

members of the Gram Paxlchyat s._s_2it11i_i1″ ,

this day. If any body avoids i:Qfi;f’;¢,~

affixed on the resident’ia’I’~….V1’10u$eV ef t11e{._’~c9m:erncc1L’

member or shall be;_.serve(Vi.–A:2;{i”Lvt1*i@.. _e1d.éSt-fnegrgibei’ of the
famiiy of the concefiicti AA .