PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Mamta – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims improper no confidence motion procedure. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against notice and motion validity. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents argue notice complies with law. (Para 3) |
| 4. court favors notice provision of act over rules. (Para 4) |
| 5. no other discrepancies; motion allowed. (Para 5) |
| 6. date for no confidence motion rescheduled. (Para 6) |
| 7. petition dismissed; all applications disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
ii) the respondents may kindly be restrained from conducting any meeting in pursuance to proposed so called No Confidence Motion.
iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."
2. Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned for the petitioner has dra
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.
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.
Procedural compliance under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is mandatory; deviations may invalidate proceedings. The court confirmed that the notice for No Confidence Motion adhered to st....
Properly convened meeting with a notice issued at least 7 days in advance is essential for the no confidence motion proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.