SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Kar) 112

V.GOPALA GOWDA
FAKIRAPPA DURGAPPA HARIJAN – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG SUB-DIVISION, GADAG – Respondent


Advocates:
H.B.NARAYAN, KUBERAGOUDA, S.KORALUR

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE this writ petition can be disposed of at preliminary hearing stage itself, Sri H. B. Narayan, High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of first respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is member of 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat. He is seeking to quash the notice of no-confidence motion at Annexure-A, dated 22-1-2005 moved against the Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition is liable to be dismissed for several reasons. Annexure-B is the calendar of events for conducting election. The election is scheduled on 25-2-2005. The no-confidence motion is scheduled on 15-2-2005. Thus, there is hardly 10 days between the scheduled no-confidence motion meeting and elections. In view of mere 10 days gap between the two events, the petitioner should not have approached the Court. This is nothing but a frivolous and luxurious petition.

( 4 ) THE no-confidence motion is not moved against the petitioner. Hence, he cannot be the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person has not filed this writ petition. The petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned no-confidence motion notice.

( 5 ) IF the petitioner is not in favour of n






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top