Amarappa Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and anr.

panchayat raj act, 1993 (14 of 1993) - notice--no confidence motion--execution of a bond hi a stamp paper by the members, that they will not support any no confidence motion against the petitioner--enforcement of alleged bond by the petitioner--onfacts, held, petitioner cannot take the help of such an assurance allegedly made by the members of the grama panchavat and estop them from exercising their statutory rights--this is against the spirit of the democratic process and the statutory rights conferred.;writ petition is dismissed. - karnataka panchayat raj (motion of no confidence against adhyaksha and upadhyaksha of grama panchayat) rules, 1994. rule 3; [b.s. patil, j] no confidence motion against adhyaksha of gram panchayat; assistant commissioner issuing notice fixing the meeting in pursuance to the requisition submitted by requisite number of members - members of the panchayat executing a bond on a rs.50/- stamp paper that they will not support any no confidence motion against the petitioner/adhyaksha petitioner/adhyaksha challenging the issue of notice held, petitioner cannot enforce the alleged bond stated to have been executed by the members of the gram panchayat assuring that they will not move any no confidence motion against him. this is against the spirit of the democratic process and the statutory rights conferred. petitioner cannot take help of such an assurance allegedly made by the members of the gram panchayat and estop them from exercising their statutory rights. in the absence of any proof to show that the notice was served on him on a particular day, it is not possible for the court to agree with the contention of the petitioner that he was not given 15 days clear notice......in the petitioner as adhyaksha of the grama panchayat and requesting the authority to convene the meeting.2. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the members have executed a bond in rs. 50 stamp paper stating that they will not support any no confidence motion against the petitioner. contrary to the said assurance given, the members are moving the no confidence motion which is illegal. counsel further submits that 15 days clear notice of the meeting is not given to the petitioner. both these contentions are untenable in law and on the facts. petitioner cannot enforce the alleged bond stated to have been executed by the members of the grama panchayat assuring that they will not move any no confidence motion against the petitioner. this is against the spirit of the democratic process and the statutory rights conferred. petitioner cannot take the help of such an assurance allegedly made by the members of the grama panchayat and estop them from exercising their statutory rights.3. the second contention urged stating that 15 days clear notice is not given by the assistant commissioner while convening the meeting of the grama panchayat and fixing it on 29.11.2006 is concerned, it has to be stated that the petitioner has not produced any material to show as to when the said notice dated 09.11.2006 was served on him. in the absence of any proof to show that the notice was served on him on a particular day, it is not possible for this court to agree with the contention of the petitioner that he was not given 15 days clear notice.the petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed.government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks.