Back
R. DEVDAS
Sharadabai W/O Sri Nagaraj Naik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Rural Development And Panchayath Raj Department – Respondent
ORDER :
R.DEVDAS J.
Though notice sent to respondent No.3 Gram Panchayat is awaited, having regard to the fact that for deciding the case on hand, the presence of the third respondent may not be necessary, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, the matter is taken up for Final Disposal.
2. The petitioner who was elected as the Adhyaksha of the third respondent-Gram Panchayat on 04.02.2021 is before this Court, aggrieved of the impugned meeting notice dated 13.05.2022 issued by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Harapanahalli, Vijayanagar District.
3. A representation dated 11.05.2022 is said to have been given by 15 members of the Gram Panchayat to the Assistant Commissioner, requesting for holding a meeting to consider motion of No-Confidence against the Adhyakasha. The Assistant Commissioner, having satisfied himself as to the requirement contemplated under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity) issued the impugned notice dated 13.05.2022, fixing the meeting for consi
The requirement of a fifteen clear days' notice for no-confidence motions is mandatory, computed from the date of dispatch, excluding both the date of dispatch and the date of the meeting.
The issuance of a fifteen-day notice for a no-confidence motion is mandatory; however, failure to provide such notice does not invalidate proceedings unless it can be shown to cause prejudice.
The court confirmed that the 15 days notice requirement for a no-confidence motion is met by issuance, not receipt, affirming the legitimacy of the notices issued under the governing rules.
Procedural requirements for considering a motion of no confidence are mandatory and must be strictly followed, as interpreted from Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994.
The legal point established is that the notice for a no confidence motion must be served on time and through a valid channel, and only those with standing can challenge the notice.
The main legal point established is that the word 'shall' in a rule may not be mandatory but directory, and the affected party must demonstrate prejudice caused by not following the rule.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
