The main legal point established is that while the 10-day notice period is mandatory, the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for the expiry of 10 days after the notice is given by the members, as clarified in previous judgments.

JUDGMENT :

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J.

The appellant has called in question the validity of order dated 27.09.2022 passed in WP No.103239/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

2. The said writ petition was filed calling in question the validity of Notice dated 11.08.2022 vide Annexure-A, whereby notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening the meeting to consider the motion of ‘No Confidence’ on 29.08.2022.

3. The facts that are made out as is relevant for the present purpose is that, the petitioner was elected as a Member to the Shidaginmol Gram Panchayat from 30.12.2020, subsequently, was elected as President of said Gram Panchayat. The application was submitted moving motion of ‘No Confidence’ against the petitioner and as against the application moved on 17.06.2022, the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.102408/2022 and eventually, said writ petition came to be allowed and notice dated 27.06.2022 was set-aside reserving liberty to the members to move fresh notice in compliance of first Proviso to Section 49(1) of the Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Act’). It is submitted that thereby fresh complaint came to be made and the application was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner on 4.8.2022 with a prayer to move the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. It is submitted that on the very same day, i.e. on 4.8.2022, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice on 11.08.2022 calling for meeting on 29.08.2022. The said action came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge on various grounds including that the time period prescribed under the first proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act requires that the Assistant Commissioner shall wait till expiry of 10 days before issuance of notice convening the meeting.

4. It is contended that in the present case, notice was issued within a period of seven days and accordingly, time period prescribed under Section 49(1) of the Act has been violated. Learned Single Judge has, however, rejected the writ petition while observing that ‘Adyaksha’ of Gram Panchayat has no locus standi to challenge the said notice after relying on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Razak Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere & Others, 2005(1) Kar.L.J. 230 . It was further observed that even if there is any irregularity, it would not confer any right on ‘Adyaksha’ who is subjected to the ‘No Confidence Motion’ and accordingly, rejected the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court and submits that question of locus standi was not considered during the earlier round of litigation and could not have been relied upon in the 2nd round of litigation so as to reject the petition on technical ground. It is further submitted that there is ambiguity insofar as stipulation of first proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act, which provides that 10 days clear notice is to be given. It is contended that when a larger Bench of this Court has held that period of 10 days is mandatory, question of further holding that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait till expiry of 10 days is a contradiction which cannot stand and accordingly, submits that clarification is required.

6. Heard both sides.

7. It must be noted that the only point as argued in the present appeal is that there is ambiguity in the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in WA No.200087/2022 and WP No.102077/2022, as regards mandatory nature of the notice period of 10 days as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act. It must be noted that in WA No.200087/2022, reference made was as regards purport of first proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act and as to whether notice of at least 10 days is required to be understood as mandatory and if that were to be so, ratio laid down in M. Puttegowda & Others Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore, 2002 (1) KLJ 16 requires reconsideration. After a