Karnataka High Court
Anita W/O Shivaji vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201232/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.201232/2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
Anita W/o Shivaji,
Age: 36 Years, Occ: Household
and Social Worker,
Now Member of
Gram Panchayat/Adakshya,
R/o: Dodaknal, Tq: Aurad (B),
Dist: Bidar.
... Petitioner
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through its Prl. Secretary,
Department of Rural Development
Panchayatraj, M.S.Building,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner
(District Election Commissioner),
Bidar, District: Bidar-585401.
3. The Assistant Commissioner
Bidar Sub Division, Bidar-585401.
2 W.P.No.201232/2022
4. The Gram Panchayat Badalgaon,
Tq: Aurad (B), Dist: Bidar,
Through its Panchayat,
Development Officer.
... Respondents
(By Sri Bhojegouda T.Koller, AGA for R1 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of
certiorari/order/direction, quashing the notice issued by 3 rd
respondent in file No.Election/GPA/CR-/2022-23 dated
23.05.2022 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and etc.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner who is Adyaksha of the fourth
respondent-Grampanchayat has called in question the
validity of the notice dated 23.05.2022 issued by the third
respondent-Assistant Commissioner fixing the date of
meeting on 09.06.2022 for the purpose of holding a 'no-
confidence motion' meeting at the request of some of the
Members of the fourth respondent-Grampanchayat.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the representation/request submitted by the Members in
Form No.1 was not forwarded to the Members along with
Form No.2-notice which has been issued on 23.05.2022 vide
Annexure-E. He also submits that he is not aware of the
contents of Form No.1 representation nor he is aware who
are the Members who have submitted Form No.1 to the
Assistant Commissioner.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 submits that a
perusal of the impugned meeting notice would go to show
that the Form-1 has been enclosed along with the said notice
and therefore there is no merit in the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He also submits
that in a writ petition filed by the Adyaksha the alleged
grievance cannot be considered in view of the judgment of
this Court in the case of Abdul Razak vs. Assistant
Commissioner, Davangere reported in 2005(1) Kar.L.J
230.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the
parties and also perused the material available on record.
5. A perusal of the impugned meeting notice dated
23.05.2022 vide Annexure-E would go to show that Assistant
Commissioner has specifically mentioned that the copy of the
representation/request submitted by the Members who have
moved 'no-confidence' has been enclosed along with Form
No.2 notice. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned
Additional Government Advocate there is no merit in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that a copy of the representation submitted by the Members
is not forwarded to him or the Members along with Form
No.2 notice.
6. Further, as rightly contended by the learned
Additional Government Advocate a writ petition by the
petitioner who is the Adyaksha of the Grampanchayat as
against whom 'no-confidence motion' has been moved by the
Members raising technical pleas is not maintainable in view
of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Abdul Razak vs. Assistant Commissioner,
Davangere reported in 2005(1) Kar.L.J 230.
7. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to
entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
