- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 200751 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SMT SAVATRI W/O DAYANAND KATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, GRAM PANCHYATH V K SALAGAR R/O: V K SALAGAR, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURGI – 585 316. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S. KADGANCHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURGI - 585 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KALABURGI – 585 102. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, KALABURGI – 585 102. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 5. GRAM PANCHAYAT, V K SALAGAR REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TQ: KAMALAPUR AND DIST: KALABURGI - 585 313. 6. SMT SUKSHATA S/O RAVI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR, 7. SMT. KUSTURBAI W/O SHANTVEER AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 8. SRI MAINABAI W/O VASANT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 9. SRI NEELKANT S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 10. SMT. SHIVANAND S/O MURAGEAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 11. SMT SHIVAMMA W/O SURYAKANTH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 12. SMT. SAVITA W/O GANAPATHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 13. SRI SUSHALIBAI W/O HONNANAIK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, 14. SMT. AKSHARBAI W/O AEMAJI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, GRAM PANCHYATH, VK SALAGAR VILLAGE, RESPONDENT NO 6 TO 14 ALL R/O: V K SALAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: KAMALAPUR, DIST: KALABURGI 585 316. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PREETAM DEULGAONKAR, ADVOCATE C/R6; SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NOSAM/KAM/CHUNVANE/103/2024-25 DATED 25-02-2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court has assailed the notice dated 25.02.2025 marked at Annexure – A convening the meeting for the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner who is the Adhyaksha of V. K. Salagar Grama Panchayath. This Court had granted interim order restraining the authority from declaring the result, however this Court also permitted the debate and discussion on the No Confidence Motion. 3. Respondents are before this Court contend that the meeting is held, the issue is debated and votes have been cast but result is not declared because of the interim order granted by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner had filed petition in W.P No.200360/2025 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 challenging the notice dated 22.01.2025, which was issued pursuant to the requisition dated 22.01.2025. 5. It is the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had an occasion to raise the grounds which are raised in the present petition on earlier occasion and he has not chosen to raise a ground and he has confined his contention only to one ground relating to number of days mentioned in the notice. Having not chosen to raise the ground on earlier occasion, he is precluded from raising the said ground in the present petition, is the submission. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner on other hand would contend that, though the law was prevailing when he filed the earlier petition, which mandated that the persons moving the No Confidence Motion to present before the Assistant Commissioner and to sign the requisition, the provision of law was not so clear in its language and it is only after the interpretation by the Division Bench that the requisition has to be signed by two person in the presence of Assistant Commissioner. Since the Assistant Commissioner has not mentioned in his endorsement on the said application dated 22.01.2025, that it is signed by two persons, this ground is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 available in view of the subsequent judgment by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. Learned counsel referring to some other requisition pertaining to some other panchayaths would also point out that the Assistant Commissioner has mentioned in the said endorsement that how many persons were present before him, and such or similar endorsement is missing. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged the notice issued on the earlier occasion based on representation dated 22.01.2025. The present petition also pursuant to the notice dated 22.01.2025. It is evident that, the earlier notice issued based on the application dated 22.01.2025 has expired. The notice issued which is challenged in the present case is based on the application dated 22.01.2025, itself. 10. What requires to be noticed is, when the writ petition is filed in the earlier occasion, the petitioner had right to question the notice based on the requisition dated 22.01.2025 on the ground that the requisition is bad in law as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 it is not signed by two persons before the Assistant Commissioner. Having not raised that ground in the earlier occasion, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the contention in the subsequent writ petition. 11. The petitioner was entitled to raise the said contention as the law was still in place. The contention that the law was not clear on this point and it is made clear in terms of the interpretation by the Division Bench in subsequent proceedings is not a ground to raise a contention post the said judgment as his earlier challenge had attained finality. The interpretation of a law in a particular way does not mean that the law has changed after the interpretation. The interpretation of law in a particular way which was not available earlier, would only mean that the law as interpreted was in statute from the date of enactment itself, unless the judgment says that the consequence of such interpretation applies prospectively. This being the position the contention that the ground raised in the present petition was not available earlier has not merit. 12. It is also noticed that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has specifically contended that the writ - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 petition is confined to only one ground i.e., whether the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for ten days after the requisition is received by. 13. Under these circumstances, the present petition challenging the notice on the premise that it is not signed before the Assistant Commissioner by two persons is not maintainable as said contention which was available earlier was not raised. 14. In addition, assuming such a contention can be raised, then also from the application dated 22.01.2025 which is signed by nine persons one cannot conclude that the requisition is not presented in person by the persons who have signed. It is quite possible that all persons who signed might have appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and they might have signed in his presence. If the Assistant Commissioner has not noted this aspect, in the application, one cannot conclude by saying that it is not signed and presented in his presence. If the members and the Assistant Commissioner assert that the members have signed in the presence of Assistant Commissioner and the petitioner disputes the same, then it becomes a question of fact. Merely because there is no - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1689 WP No. 200751 of 2025 endorsement to that effect one cannot conclude is not signed and presented in the presence of Assistant Commissioner. 15. Hence the following: ORDER I) The writ petition is dismissed. II) The respondent authority shall announce the result. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28