Karnataka High Court
Sangappa vs The Assistant Commissioner And Anr. on 28 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR1102, 2004(2)KARLJ567
Author: K. Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K. Bhakthavatsala
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the notice dated 12-1-2004 bearing No. VPC/CR-18/2003-04 (Annexure-A) on the file of the first respondent.
2. Respondent 1 is represented by Sri H.B. Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. Notice to respondent 2 is dispensed with.
4. Heard the arguments for final disposal.
5. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.--
The petitioner is the President of the second respondent-Grama Panchayat, which consists of 14 members and the petitioner was elected as president on 21-12-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that impugned notice at Annexure-A was served on him on 14-1-2004, whereby convening a special meeting on 29-1-2004 at 3.00 p.m. for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner. The impugned notice is challenged on the following grounds.--
(a) The impugned notice is not in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules');
(b) The copies of the notice and the motion were not made available to the petitioner; and
(c) Respondent 1 has not given 15 days clear notice of moving no-confidence motion against the petitioner.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision in M. Muniyappa and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1997(7) Kar. L.J. 272 : ILR 1997 Kar. 677 on the point that Rule 3 is mandatory in nature but the respondent 1 has not complied with the mandatory Rule and therefore the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
7. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 says that the Assistant Commissioner shall give to the, members a notice not less than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form II.
8. The Law Lexicon Dictionary (II edition) of P. Ramanatha Iyer (vide page 334) says that where the term "clear days'' is used, its effect is to exclude the date on which the notice was served and the date on which the motion is convened.
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the instant case, the notice was served on the petitioner on 14-1-2004 and the special meeting is scheduled to be held on 29-1-2004. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no 15 days clear notice to the petitioner, and thus the mandatory Rules of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is not complied with. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed without dwelling upon the other contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
10. In the result, I pass the following order.--
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 12-1-2004 bearing No. VPC/CR-18/2003-04 (Annexure-A) is quashed. No costs.
The learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.