Sri.Virupakshi v. the State of Karnataka
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by Adhyaksha of Tumkurlahalli Gram Panchayat, Molakalmuru, Chitradurga, challenging Assistant Commissioner's notice (No. CHUNAVANE/CR/142/2024-25 dt. 23.12.2024, Annexure-G) convening meeting on 16.01.2025 to consider no-confidence motion; issue: whether Assistant Commissioner was bound to serve copy of proposed motion on members. Construction of Rule 3(1), Rule 3(2) and Form-II of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, and proviso to S.49, Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993: no such duty on Assistant Commissioner; Mallamma v. State of Karnataka, ILR KAR 2002 4253, distinguished as confined to Rule 3(1). Petition dismissed by N S Sanjay Gowda J on 11.02.2025; pending interlocutory applications disposed.
What did the court decide?
Under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, it is the members' requisition which must be accompanied by the copy of the proposed motion, delivered in person by any two of the signing members to the Assistant Commissioner. Rule 3(2) does not, directly or indirectly, require the Assistant Commissioner to furnish the copy of the proposed motion again to the members; read with Form-II, his notice need only inform members that a meeting is convened to consider the motion of no-confidence and specify its date.