Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)C. Puttaswamy, Etc. vs Smt. Prema, Etc. on 24 February, 1992
10. The Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Puttaswamy's case (supra) does not come to the aid of the appellants. That decision may only support the petitioner's contention that notice of not less than 15 clear days for the meeting to discuss no confidence motion, is a mandatory requirement. The observation that the underlying idea of Section 47 of Karnataka Zilla Parishad and Nyaya Panchayats Act is to ensure that the position of men holding high elective Offices of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan is not easily disturbed does not carry the case of the petitioners any further. That observation cannot be divorced from the context. The learned single Judge himself upheld the contention that the duration of notice is a mandatory requirement. Whether or not that view of the learned single Judge is in conformity of the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka Hfgh Court though it is apparently contrary to the Division Bench decision of this Court cited supra need not be gone into. We are assuming that the learned single Judge now is correct on this aspect. Yet, we are resting our conclusion on the proviso to Section 34-A(3) which is similar to Section 47(3} of the Kamataka Act. That proviso did not fall consideration of the Full Bench. Nothing said by the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court will militate against the construction placed by us on the proviso vis-a-vis the factual events ofthe present case.
Section 47 in Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
R. Kistayya And Anr. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 29 July, 1971
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General submits that
the writ petition should have been dismissed in toto on the ground that want of 15 days' clear days notice being directory in nature, the notice will not be invalid. Reliance for this proposition is placed on a decision of this Court in Kistayya v. State of A.P., 1972 (2) APLJ 201. It is also contended that in any case, the proviso to sub-section (3) is clearly attracted and therefore the meeting notice dated 31-12-1999 is immune from attack. The learned Additional Advocate-General thus, canvasses the correctness of conclusions reached by the learned single Judge on these two aspects while supporting the ultimate conclusion reached.
1