D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is one more case of an 'adhyaksha' of a Gram Panchayat, who is averse of facing the no-confidence motion that has been moved by the members of the Panchayat who have lost confidence in such 'adhyaksha', who has approached this Court to invalidate the notice dated 2-11-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner fixing a date for the meeting to be held on 24-11-2004 to enable the Members to consider the motion.

( 2 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice is in violation of requirements of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Learned counsel also submits that the notice issued by the Assistant commissioner was not accompanied with a copy of the proposed motion and therefore the notice is bad. In this regard, learned Counsel submits that compliance of requirements of Rule 3 of the Rules have been held to be mandatory; that this Court has taken the view that the notice has to be invalidated in the absence of compliance of any of the requirements of rule 3 as held in the case of Mallamma v State of Karna

Click Here to Read the rest of this document