1. 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 R.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 consideration of No - Confidence on 01.06.2022.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the meeting notice falls short of 15 clear days as contemplated in sub-rule (2) of R.3 of the Rules and therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned meeting notice is required to be quashed and set aside. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Roopa v. The State of Karnataka, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Others, reported in ILR 2019 Kar. 1373 : AIROnLine 2018 KAR. 2718. Learned Counsel submits that this Court has taken note of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy v. Smt. Prema reported in AIR 1992 Kar. 356, wherein it was held that the Rules governing the procedure of a motion of No - Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyakasha of the Gram Panchayat (earlier Mandal Panchayat) are mandatory in nature. In that context, R.3(2) of the Rules, 1994, fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Roopa (supra) and it was held that the provisions are mandatory in nature and deficiency if any, are not curable.

5. The learned Counsel, however, submits that the other grounds raised in the writ petition, such as there being no allegation as contemplated under sub-section (2) of S.49 of The Karnataka Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, may not survive for consideration, since Sub-Rule (2) of S.49 which was inserted by Act No.44 of 2015 with effect from 25.02.2016 was omitted by subsequent amendment Act No.49 of 2020 and deemed to have come into effect from 31.03.2020.

6. After notice was issued to the respondents and the learned HCGP was directed to secure the original records to ascertain as to when the impugned notice was despatched or sent by the Assistant Commissioner and when it was received by the petitioner, the learned HCGP has furnished the original records.

7. On perusal of the original records, it is evident that the notice dated 16.05.2022 was personally served on the petitioner on 17.05.2022. The petitioner has acknowledged receipt of the notice by affixing her signature in the acknowledgement form along with the other members of the Gram Panchayat. All the signatures are also identified by the Panchayat Development Officer of the Gram Panchayat. The original records were shown to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the petitioner accepts the fact that the notice dated 16.05.2022 was served on the petitioner on 17.05.2022 personally. The records would also show that the meeting notice was also sent through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due on 18.05.2022. It is the contention of the petitioner that she received the notice by RPAD on 20.05.2022.

8. Having a