- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.201001 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAVITA W/O SUBHASH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT/ADHYAKSHA, BHARATGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O VILLAGE BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 2. SADASHIVA S/O MADEVA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT/UPA-ADHYAKSHA, BHARATGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O VILLAGE BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. HEMA L. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 209. 4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 5. DHONDIBA S/O SHIVAJI PATTAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 6. DATTA S/O DASHARATH KATAKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 7. DHANARAJ S. PATTAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 119. 8. VIJAYSINGH S/O SOMALU RAJPUT, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 9. SMT. SUVARNA W/O AMBANNA LENKEPPAGOL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 10. ASHOK S/O LALSINGH NAYIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 11. KASHEEBAI W/O SEETARAM RATHOD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 12. GANGUBAI W/O KANTU RATHOD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 13. SUMITRA W/O LAXMAN RATHOD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 14. CHAVAN PADDU S/O HEERU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. 15. CHAVAN SHAILAJA W/O SOMU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 16. KAVITA W/O PINTU CHAVAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI LT, TQ: TIKOTA, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R16) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.03.2025 OF RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 16 VIDE ANNEXURE-B & B1 TO INITIATE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHARATGI TO RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE NO.£ÀA.UÁæ¥ÀA/ZÀÄ£Á/C«ªÀÄA/¹Dgï-49/2024-25 DATED 17.03.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-C CALLING FOR MEETING TO DISCUSS NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ON 03.04.2025 AT 11.00 AM. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Smt. Hema L. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate, who represents respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel, who represents respondent Nos.5 to 16. 2. With a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the representation dated 07.03.2025 which was presented to initiate no-confidence motion against the petitioners and also to quash the notice issued by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura, calling for a meeting to discuss about the no-confidence motion moved, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the first petitioner is the elected President and the second petitioner is the Vice-President of Gram Panchayat, Bharatgi. 12 members of the Gram Panchayat gave a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 representation on 07.03.2025 to initiate no-confidence motion against the petitioners. The representation was submitted to respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura. Basing on the said representation, respondent No.3 issued notice calling for a meeting to discuss on no-confidence motion that was moved against the petitioners and aggrieved by the issuance of the representation by the members and notice by respondent No.3, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contends that the representation given is in clear violation of the procedure laid down under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Learned counsel states that the notice of intention to make a motion of no-confidence shall be submitted in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner, but in the case on hand, said procedure was not followed and therefore, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 the representation given and the notice that was issued by respondent No.3 in pursuance of the representation given by the members are required to be quashed. 5. In support of her submission, learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.14224/2022 between Smt. Manjula B.R. and The State of Karnataka and others. In the said decision, dealing with identical facts, the Court at para 6 and 7 of the order held as follows: “6. In view of the fact that respondent No.3 had not identified the two members who had appeared before him and submitted the notice of no-confidence, this Court considers that the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 was in violation of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 which is mandatory as held by the Full Bench of this Court in C.Puttaswamy’s case referred to supra. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner which is convened on 22.07.2022 is quashed. It is pertinent to sensitize respondent No.3 that henceforth whenever a notice of no confidence - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 is moved, he shall without fail make an endorsement as to the names of the two members who submitted the notice of no confidence.” 6. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioners also relied upon the decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No.200052/2025, a perusal of the order reveals that the said writ appeal was disposed of, as the same has become infructuous. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the Rule, which was relied upon by learned counsel for the writ petitioners was indeed followed by respondent No.3. 8. Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel, who represents respondent Nos.5 to 16 submits that the representation is in conformity with the Rule that was referred to by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the representations at Annexures-B and B1 clearly disclose endorsement by respondent No.3 that he received those representations on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 07.03.2025 at 4.30 p.m. Learned counsel states that with abundant caution, respondent No.3 got the photographs taken and those photographs reveals presence of more than two members who signed the notice and that they all collectively submitted the representation to respondent No.3. Learned counsel submits that thus, Rule 3 was indeed followed and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate states that to avoid situations like these, the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura i.e., respondent No.3 cautiously ordered to take photographs while he receives the representation and the photographs submitted by respondent Nos.5 to 16 clearly disclose that they were submitted by the members, who signed the notice and those photographs also reveals the time at which they were taken. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 16 contending that the Court is required to see whether any - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 such non-compliance is fatal and indeed there is such non- compliance at all and thereafter to take a decision, relied upon the decision of this Court which is reported in MANU/KA/0750/2009 between Venkataram and Ors. and Assistant Commissioner. 11. The contents of Annexure-B and Annexure-B1, copies of notice reveals an endorsement to the effect that they were received by the Assistant Commissioner, Vijayapura on 07.03.2025 at 4.30 p.m. The time at which the representation was submitted as per the photographs presented is 16.31 hours, which means 4.31 p.m. Thus, though learned counsel for the writ petitioners on perusing the photographs that were filed by respondent Nos.5 to 16 states that those photographs were not supported by the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner or PDO and therefore, they cannot be considered, yet having regard to the fact that the no-confidence motion moved will be put to voting in the meeting that would be convened by the Assistant Commissioner to consider the said no-confidence - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2340 WP No. 201001 of 2025 motion, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement for the Court to call for the affidavits of the persons who are present in the photographs that are produced before this Court. 12. 12. Also, by all the above discussion, it is clear that there is no such violation of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Pancyayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat), Rules, 1994 as projected by the petitioners. 13. Therefore, this Court holds that the writ petition lacks merits. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21