WP N:::».6;§E’?’4 of 2699
This petitimza is filed unéer Artjcies 2:26 and :22? of
thc; Constitutien of India praying to quash the names
dated 26.08.2669, iSsued by the 15? responde;{;tT…_”F}_j1e
cap}! of which ha$ been pr0dL1{:ed herewith at A11r:<ixi3.r€:~
A; if: may be deciared that the pmvisiens of Ruié' '3..'_ef_ _th.§:_ _
Kaynataka Panchayat Ra; {Mstion of flO~COI'}fi~§CfiQ(§' ét(*.)_'
Rule 1994, is uitravires ':0 {ha proviso t_9~vSe_¢i:io:2..V4«9 ::.-_f v
the Kamataka fimchayat R213' Ac'1:i','~}993 and'-as sL1(:h'–
mllland voici, and etc.
This petititm coming.»'cv:1__ for
{hi3 day, the Court made the'-fQ}1Qwi;1g:._ .
The petitioner i1;;{s*~«qz1es€i0neéi the Vires of sertain
pmvisiorzs "of the: ':~"sj.ie"1€;iéfihg to nowcanfidence motion.
At this staggi, is :10€'né<::e$s3:y for this Caurt to go ints
"iixékt Egfiésfjén. ix} writ petition. But, suffice it :0 say
AL'-that éTav.."fiq'-cénfidence fixation is mmzed against tha
pet§i:i01:1_j:~;:'. -. ii is, fit} dcsubt, true that a sontmztiarz is
: 'i"2:'¥.if::"§j&§. E.:§§ the learned counsel fer the petitimizer that no
né't§§é has been isgued. That has been dfiflifid' fl
W? No.65I'?*«':r Of 909?}
Having regard ta tha fact that, .,
notice has been issued, the quesffigrg' cf U
d0(3$ not arise, '4 '
Petition stands rejected. reafifiedy
to the petifiener, she <:a11':§a2.QrkQ£i£_ 'Vfiéfijjlfj%é'¥}e§%éé"in"ii1es€
proaeedings. — 'V — %
JUDGE
Eimsf' """ . V'