IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.39213/2018 (LB-RES) Between:
Smt.Rangamma, W/o Byreshwara, Aged about 55 years, President of Gungaramale, Grama Panchayat, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 141. …Petitioner (By Sri Sharath S. Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. The Panchayath Development Officer, Gungaramale Grama Panchayat, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 141.
2. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 141.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur Sub Division, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 141.
4. The State of Karnataka, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Represented by its Secretary, M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondents (By Sri H. Devendrappa, Advocate for R-1 & R-2 Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R-3 & R-4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the report submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent dated 09.08.2018 as per Annexure-E Report No.2018-19/436 Grama Panchayath, Gunguru and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice dated 20.08.2018 at Annexure-F calling for a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion and fixing the date for the meeting as 06.09.2018.
2. This Court, by its order dated 5.9.2018 has permitted the meeting to go ahead as scheduled, but had observed that the results shall be announced after obtaining the orders from this Court.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate points out that when the matter was called on 10.12.2018, the matter was passed over, there was no representation for the petitioner and as the matter could not be taken up, the matter was adjourned.
4. Today when the matter was called out in the morning session, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was passed over. Again when the matter is called out at 3.35 p.m also, there is no representation for the petitioner.
5. Taking note of the submission that motion of no-confidence has been passed, but results have not been announced in view of the order of this Court dated 5.9.2018 and noticing the lack of diligence in prosecuting the case by the petitioner, this petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent No.3 shall announce the results of the motion of no-confidence.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR