IN 'FEE HIGH CUURI' OF' KAi{NA'1'AKA AT BANGALORE
DA'1'Ei) 'F1~flS 'I'HE 1 1'? *4 DAY OP' NOVEMBER, 1.2008
BEFORE
"mp: HUN 'BLE MR. dUS'I'l(;3E) RAVI MAL§§v1'A91'}_i ..j: L'
WR1'}'Pb3'1'l'i'iON No. 13995 Oi?' 2o0a:L.£§i;;::1gi3i}f "
BETW EEN :
SMT. .}AYAN*I'HY'.
w/0 SOMSHEKAR,
AGED AB(}U'£' :23 mags,
R/AT AVARTHY, ~.
KOPPA VILLAGE,
PERIYAPA'I"I'ANA'3'ALUK, V :
MYSORE }}.fS'"l"'R¥C"!"'_ _ PETITIONER
{BY SR2. V113 Hoi§\r:2>;'-1.?§i;éADHA HOSMATH,
9 P PRASABENA ASSOQ{A'I'ES",'«!iDV.,)
1'; sfi';mai""{;FjV%K5RN'A'1§§KA,
7.R£*.'..P. " BY KTS $1é:C:RE'i'ARY FOR
R2jRAE. L}§%}Kr?i:§}_.i§'}?3'«'iB;N'l' Am)
pAré.c'HAYA*;*H:-an'
V1DH--ANA_ s<:1¥.,!1=:'2 HA,
BANGA:,of-#3 - 1.
' AGRAMA PANCHAYATH,
TK£}?PA.-'VILLAGE,
--..4'PE'RIYAPATTANA TALUK,
v ,j\{1Y23C}RE DISTRICI',
" REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
" « 3. 'rug: ASST, COMMISSIONER,
HUNASUR SUB DIVISION,
EUNASUR, MYSORE DISTRICT'.
Wk"
4. PUSPALAW-IA,
W/O NOT KNGWN,
AGED ABOUT' 30 "YEARS,
Rf AT KOPPA VILLAGE,
PEREYAPATTANA TALUK,
MYSORE i3IS'I'RlC2'I'.
33. Si-HVAPRAKASH,
S] 0 NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RIAT KGPPA WLLAGE,
PERIYAPATTANA TALUK,
MYSORE DIbTb€l(;'I'.
6. K S RAJU,
S/O NOT KNOWN, V
AGED ABOUT 36 f{E;A_Rs,§:'
¥21A'I' KOPPA v11;LA§3»2:.
PERIYAPATTANA frA--:.{~,t_:<:',' .j
MYSGRE Dislfmgjifi, '
7. 3M'1'.:,{3Hi?1';e~;£;_%
W/0 N0? 1x'*mLUI«:;_ V '
_ M'YSC'fE§E§ i:*J1sa:*rm ABQUT 33 YEARS,
.' R/-H1' KOPPA ViLLA(}li*3,
" ' V .PERIYAPA'I"}'ANA TALUK,
" MYSURE :)x:m>e1:;:*1'.
10. 8M3'. LAi+iSHMl,
W/(3 NO'? KNOWN,
EXGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R[A'1"' KOPPA V§LLA(x'E,
PERIYAPATTANA TALUK,
MYSORE DISYRICT.
11. 3;) S SURESH,
S/O NOT KNOWN,
AGEI3 ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/KI' 1:)c)I:)1:)AH(3sUR,
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE,
PE RIYAPA'i"1'ANA TALL) K,
MYSOFBE, DISTRICI'.
12. SJMAKBULSAB, <
S,'() NOT I{NC)'WN,_
AGED ABOUT 4:). Y'EARs;,_'
R/AT DODDAH{3s(;iV£e,V .
QC
R/AT KOPPA-VILI.;A=GE, '
PER;YAPATmNA;i_f§iA1,U';=:,
MYSGRE 'D1si'ifR,¥.C::r:::;, ~
1.
3. Li§iELf’E’HU; 4
s/0 NOT i§NowN,_ * ~
AGED ABOGT 44:’; YEARS,’
R/AT RANlGA’i’§§_’, ».
R/ATE+§€)PPA VILLAGE,
“}?ERiYAP£\x?”I’AI€A TALUK,
M’i’f3.Q§€E D.IE>’f1fR*–.¥.(_:”.
W] 0 NOT _KN{Tr”WN,
_ AGES— A3.oUT’55 YEARS,
‘RV/AT’ GERAGUR,
e .I:~z;A€”r__ KOPPA VILLAGE,
“«}3’i’£-RiY’£\PA’i’l’ANA TALUK,
_ -_MYSGR’E DISTFEICF.
$5: RENUKA swmvsy,
23,10 NOT KNOWN,
” AGED ABOUT’ 40 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHOSUR,
R] AT KOPPA VILLAGE,
ir’ERlYAPAT’}’AN A TALU K,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
16. PU’I”i’AMMA,
w/0 NOT KNOWN,
AGED ABOUT’ 55 YEARS,
R /A1′ CH1’KKAHOSUR,
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE,
PERIYAPATTANA TALUK,
MYSQRE DIS’i’RIC’1′.
17. D C CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O NOT KNOWN, V
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, _ 3
RIAT DODIDAHGSUR, T
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE, ‘
P§3RIYAPAT’1’ANA’§’A_L’_UK,
MYSORE 1i)1STR3CT;–‘L’V . ‘-
:3. A P cHA1Nii.R2asHia;KAi€A:AH;”
S/O NOTVVKNV-3w’;a, V -.
AGED A:30U’1’i 5″c;’.?;*E_jAi”£%jS,*«.v% . ‘
R/A’l’AVA.R’I’HY,’ ‘ _ ”
R/AT KOPPA VILLAGE,’ v ”
PERIYAPATTANA .%;’AL. UK, ”
MYSGRJ3 1:);s’rE<:C:"i'.~ = '-
'(mi vsszi;R»–.'DEv5uAsS';";A(}A3
'k-Jr*1'n\'
RE}SPONI)}iiN"l'S
%~<1'h:sLwrit% Petitien is filed under Articles 226 and 227
3:' the Qioxgstitution of India, praying to quash the IT}.€)tiC€
_ . '—i,§3s1,1r-ad by-'the R3 dated 2 1.10.2008 as per Am1exure- B and
This Ptatition cnming on tbr preliminary hearing this
VT 'é'é3.y:, the Court made the fG1§awing:~
@l\..,..
GREEK
Petitioner seeks for a writ of certioi’:ar<i.'::j&:o'quash_ the
notice daied 21. 30.2008 issuedljby respeglqem' as "
per Annexure—- 1;).
2. Learned couimel iof u;’5e’£.’itioI1e:*” Siibnnts that
Rule 31;: ) and 3(2) of 1:I’1e_ :<%a£:¢ha}%a.&eeg;"§;zaj Act has been
violated in h_is"'e é.se. of No Confidence
under by the copy of the
resoluféioo fights under Rule 3(2) are
violated.) "
_ So éiiariyae. ‘1:1ie”veoii.temioz1 regarding violation of Rule
. V’ :,,,'”eor;eemeé1%the same is covered by the order of
of this Court reported in 1m 200′? K15 R
1{)Af2-8′. $11 ssaid decision the Division Bench have held
“that irioiation of Rule 3(1) is a. mere ineguiarity Winch
hoe iiot caused any preiudiee to the person aggieved. In
of the said judgnent the first contention of the
petitioner is unsustamable.
°€’z:’
4. So far as the second contentiozl is conoemed the
petitioner rely on the judgement reported in AER 1981 SC
136, at para 16 wherein the Supreme Court has
the person proceeded against most lmow 4′
required to meet the ailegationeiwhieh it ; it
taken up against him. Relying of
the Supreme Court the hpetitioneri
submits that in absene€__Aoi’ T;i”‘1§ furnisheci
to him he is unaoie to said allegations
of the scheduled i
5;”~.fj’fae pet1i§i’o.x;e:~.:’ been served with a notice in
accordance”with,iew;~–,_ii’i3e notice states that the meeting is
the of deciding the motion of No
is Ieveiled against him by the other
mee;ioers.. — “i’};ereIbre, that itself is a notice to the petitioner.
‘So far3the holding of the meefing is concerned the other
it are not required to gve the list of allegations
_,w_§1ieh form the basis of the No tijoniidence. Therefore the
it notice of a No Confidence meeting is itself a. sufiioient
/,V,…._.
7
requirement. in that View 01″ the matter t.¥1eV.~-seeezad
eentention is also unsustainable and is rejectecy “: ,,
6. Writ petition being deveig of m.e’1’i’i;s.::’_iS'”‘t:h(:1’e.tk$I*’e.
rej eeted.
7. No erder as to costs.
_ A sd/.. YKL
