Dismissed

Smt Tanuja W/O Tukaram Gurav and Others. v. State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2022WP/101965/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order dismisses a writ petition challenging a notice for a no-confidence motion against a Gram Panchayat Adhyaksha. The Court held that the petitioner's grounds regarding Section 49(2) and the proviso to Section 49(1) are inapplicable following amendments to the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 that came into effect on 31.03.2020, which the Court found fatal to the petitioner's case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed at the oral hearing as the grounds raised were inapplicable due to amendments in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 effective 31.03.2020.

Smt Tanuja W/O Tukaram Gurav and Others… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101965 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 101965 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT TANUJA W/O TUKARAM GURAV AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLYAL, TAL KHANAPUR, R/O. PANDURANG GALLI, AT POST GOLYALI VILLAGE, TQ. KHANAPUR DIST. BELAGAVI

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-01.

¶14

Digitally signed byVINAYAKA B V VINAYAKA Location: B V Dharwad Date: 2022.06.09 10:24:17 +0530

¶15

DHONDIBAI MARUTI DHANAGAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. VICE - PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶16

SMT. RANI SURESH KAMBLE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶17

SHRI. NAMDEV S/O DHONDIBA GURAV AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI,

¶18

¶19

WP No. 101965 of 2022

¶20

R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR,

¶21

DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶22

SMT. SHIVANI SHIVAJI BALAJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶23

SMT. SARIKA VENKAT PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶24

GOUTAMI GANAPATI KAMBLE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶25

SHRI. SANTOSH MARUTI KULAM, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶26

SHRI. HANAMANT RAMU KODALKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOLYALI, R/O. GOLYALI VILLAGE, TAL. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 345.

¶27

RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. VINAYAK V.S., HCGP)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. CHUNAVANE/ GRA.PAM/VIVA-11/2022-2023 DATED 19/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C & ETC.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 101965 of 2022

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶35

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Notice to the other respondents is not necessary for the following reasons.

¶36

The petitioner who was elected as Adhayaksha of Gram Panchayat, Golyali is before this Court calling in question the meeting notice dated 19.05.2022, whereby, at the request of the members of the Gram Panchayat, a motion of No Confidence is sought to be carried against the petitioner.

¶37

Two grounds are raised in the writ petition. Firstly, it is contended that the provisions contained in Section 49(2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides that if there are any allegations against the Adhayaksha, the same will have to be stated and made known to the Adhyaksha. But Section 49(2) stands deleted from the Rule book in terms of amendments brought to the Act in Act No.40/2020 which came into effect from 31.03.2020.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 101965 of 2022

¶40

Secondly, it is sought to be contended that in terms of the second proviso of Section 49(1) the resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha could not have been moved within 30 months from the date of his / her elections. Even this provision has been amended with effect from 31.03.2020 reducing the period of 30 months to 15 months and it is not disputed that the period of 15 months have elapsed since the election of the petitioner as Adhyaksha. Therefore both the grounds raised by the petitioner have no legs to stand.

¶41

Consequently, as no ground is made out, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶42

SD JUDGE

¶43

BVV

Smt Tanuja W/O Tukaram Gurav and Others. v. State of Karnataka and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Tanuja W/O Tukaram Gurav and Others. v. State of Karnataka and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muppanna a Pujari Since Decd by His Lrs Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Sayyed Noor Ahmed S/O Syed Abdul Munaf Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mehaboobi W/O Rehmanaga Patil Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Jain Agm Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Agm Homeopathic Medical College Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mahadev S/O Bhimappa Jarale Vs State of Karnataka