ORAL ORDER

1. The petition is filed seeking quashing of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening a special meeting on 06.02.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as required under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules'), a fifteen days clear notice from the date of service of notice on the petitioner has not been given and the petitioner was only served of the notice on 23.01.2025 i.e., within fifteen days from the date of the proposed meeting and hence, the proceedings are illegal.

3. He places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.101890 of 2022¹ to support his argument.

4. The learned counsel who appears on behalf of the members produces records to indicate that the notice of the meeting was in fact brought to the notice of the petitioner and since he refused the notice, a mahazar was drawn and the notice was affixed on his house and therefore, the argument that there was no clear fifteen days notice is incorrect. He also produces photographs to indicate that the notice was affixed on the petitioner's house.

5. In my view, the argument of the petitioner that there was no fifteen days clear notice from the date of service of notice to him cannot be accepted.

1 Smt.Sharadabai vs. The State of Karnataka, WP No.101890 of 2022 (Dharwad

Bench), DD: 31.05.2022, Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.Devdas

6. This Court, while interpreting Rule 3(2), [3. Motion of No-confidence.—(1) x x x] of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha an Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules') in W.P. No.30979 of 2024³, has categorically held that fifteen days clear notice contemplated under the Rules, is fifteen days notice from the date of the notice of the Assistant Commissioner and not from the date of service of notice to the members.

7. It may also be pertinent to state here that if the Assistant Commissioner is required first to serve the

2 Rule 3(2) of the Rules reads as follows-

(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II. The Assistant commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer:

Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.”

3 Mrs.Bhagyamma vs. The state of Karnataka and others, WP

No.30979/2024, DD: 01.02.2025, Coram: Justice Sanjay Gowda notice and thereafter fix a date, it is obvious that he would not be able to fix a date at all, fundamentally because, he has to ensure that the entire process of convening a meeting is concluded within one month from the date he receives the notice.

8. Rule 3(2) of the Rules categorically states that he only has to give a notice of the proposed meeting and the fifteen days clear notice contemplated therein would obviously be from the date of the notice and not from the date of service of notice.

9. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the petition is therefore dismissed