- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 200900 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SRI. DODDI RAMMOHAN REDDY S/O VENKATREDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: ADHYAKSHA, JAIGRAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: GURUMITKAL, DIST: YADGIRI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S BUILDING – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER YADGIRI, DIST: YADGIRI – 585 202. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER YADGIRI, TQ: AND DIST: YADGIRI – 585 202. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) JAIGRAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, JAIGRAM, TQ: GURUMITKAL, DIST: YADGIRI – 585 315. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 5. SRI. SHEKHAR S/O HANAMANTH AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 6. SRI. RAVINDRAPPA S/O HANMANTH AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 7. SMT. NIRMALADEVI W/O MALLAREDDY AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 8. SMT. ARUNA W/O MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 9. SMT. PADMAMMA W/O DODDA KURUMAPPA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 10. SMT. M. MADHAVI W/O BALARAM AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 11. SRI. TAYAMMA W/O LAXMAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 12. SMT. NASIMA BEGUM W/O MAHIBOOB AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 13. SMT. ARUNA W/O DANAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 14. SMT. ANJAMMA W/O ASHAPPA AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 15. SMT. SANGEETHA W/O RAGHAVANKA PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 16. SRI BASAPPA S/O TIPPANNA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. 17. PADAMAMMA W/O VENKATREDDY AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT. ALL R/O: JAIGRAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: GURUMITKAL, DIST: YADGIRI – 585 315. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 FIN FILE NO.¸ÀA.PÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/91/2024-25 DATED 14-03-2025 CALLING FOR MEETING TO DISCUSS NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Office objection is overruled for the time being. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6. 2. This petition is filed assailing the notice dated 14.03.2025 issued by 3rd respondent- Assistant Commissioner convening the meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Jaygram Gram Panchayat, Taluk Gurumitkal. It is further not in dispute that respondents No.5 to 17 are the members of the aforementioned Gram Panchayat. 3. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner issued notice at Annexure-A dated 14.03.2025 referred to above convening the meeting to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 against the petitioner. The requisition is said to have been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Annexure- D. From Annexure-D, it is noticed that 13 members have signed the petition. The petition is dated 10.03.2025. Pursuant to the said requisition, the 'No Confidence Motion' is convened on 04.04.2025 and accordingly notice is issued on 14.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that 15 days notice contemplated under the applicable Rule is given under the said notice. However, it is the contention that the Assistant Commissioner has not endorsed that two persons have signed the requisition in his presence and personally presented the same before him. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the notice is defective and not in compliance with the applicable provisions of law. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel appearing for other respondents would contend that notice is in accordance with the requirement of applicable Rules and Regulations. In - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 Annexure-D, the requisition dated 10.03.2025, respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has endorsed that two persons namely Shekar son of Hanumanth and Ravindrappa son of Hanumanth have presented the requisition by personally appearing before the Assistant Commissioner. 6. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Assistant Commissioner has not stated in the endorsement that two persons have signed before him. This Court is of the view that such interpretation is impermissible. The persons who have submitted the requisition on 10.03.2025 have signed the requisition and out of 13 persons who have signed the requisition, two persons names are mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner as having personally appeared before him to submit the requisition at Form No.1. 7. It is further noticed that the notice does not suffer from any other infirmity and same is in accordance with applicable Rules. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1888 WP No. 200900 of 2025 8. Hence, the Petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6