Disposed

Smt. Bebi Gundu Talwar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2019WP/105323/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India attacking an impugned notice. The Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, reserving liberty to the respondents to file a motion complying with the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous. Liberty reserved to respondents to move a motion under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Smt. Bebi Gundu Talwar Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.105323/2018 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BEBI GUNDU TALWAR AGE: 28 YEARS, PRESIDENT MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: VITTAL NAGAR, HONNIHAL, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY (PANCHAYAT RAJ), RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYATH, BELAGAVI, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶14

SRI.PRAKASH BALAPPA KADYAGOL AGE: 26 YEARS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

SMT.ANNAVVA RAYAPPA BALLODI AGE: 59 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103

¶17

SRI.SHAHAJI ATHMARAM JADHAV AGE: 38 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103

¶18

SRI.GANGAPPA HANAMANTAPPA SATYAGOAL AGE: 39 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶19

SMT.NEELAVVA RAYAPPA KENGERI AGE: 45 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶20

SRI.VIJAY SHIVAJIRAO JADHAV AGE: 46 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶21

SRI.RAMASIDDA BASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 44 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶22

SMT.BALAVVA GANAPATHI SULAGEKAR AGE: 40 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶23

SMT.MANGALA SHIVANAND MATHAD AGE: 38 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶24

SRI.SHIVAJI GURAPPA ASTHEKAR AGE: 37 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

14.	SMT.KOUSAR BABASAB YARAGATTI AGE: 30 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103
15.	SRI.SANJAY MARUTI ASTHEKAR AGE: 48 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103
16.	SMT.USHA RAVINDRA PATIL AGE: 58 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103
17.	SMT.ANJUM MEERASAB YARAGATTI AGE: 32 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.
18.	SRI.KESARKHAN IMAMASAB MULLA AGE: 44 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.
19.	SMT.KAVITA MAHESH MUGALI AGE: 32 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103
20.	SRI.BABU SHIVAJI KALE AGE: 50 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103.
21.	SRI.MANJULA, W/O. YALLAPPA MUGALI AGE: 38 YEARS, MEMBER OF MODAGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 103. ... RESPONDENTS
BY	SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
	SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADV. FOR C/R4;
	SRI. SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADV. FOR R6 TO R9 AND R12 TO R21; R3, R5, R10 AND R11 – SERVED)

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED:16.08.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEARING NO.Kra VPC/CR:28/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-"F".

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶32

the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶34

the respondents that the event having passed i.e., the date of meeting having passed and not been conducted in view of the interim order, he prays that the writ petition could be disposed of by reserving liberty to the respondents to move a motion afresh in accordance with law.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also agree with the same.

¶36

In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

The petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous and by further reserving liberty to the respondents to move a motion in compliance of the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶39

The 2^nd respondent shall ensure that the motion is moved and carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and does not give scope for assailing the same on any technical infirmity. In the event of any default to make the result susceptible on the ground of any technical infirmity, the 2^nd respondent alone shall be held responsible and the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, shall conduct an enquiry and if a prima facie case is made out, the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, shall forward a report to this Court and to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

Reforms, for initiating disciplinary enquiry against the

¶42

2^nd respondent.

¶43

Petition stands ordered accordingly.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

gab

Smt. Bebi Gundu Talwar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bebi Gundu Talwar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parimalacharya S. Agnihotri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Tungbhadaran Educationsociety Vs State of Karnataka

Integrated Educational and Social Econimic Vs Parasappa S/O. Ayyappa Chunnavvar

M/S. Pat Petroleums Vs the Union of India

F.v.Manvi S/O Veerappa Manvi Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadevappa S/O Ramappa Dalawai, Vs the Chief Secretary