- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.201171 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SMT. H.K. BASSAMMA W/O ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O WARD NO.3, GOREBAL VILLAGE, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE, BY ITS SECRETARY-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 101. 4. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, GOREBAL, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. REPRESENTED BY PDO 5. SMT. SRIVARDHINI W/O SATYANARAYAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VICE-PRESIDENT, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 6. SRI. MARIDEVA S/O SHYAMANNA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 7. SRI. R. SANTOSHKUMAR S/O RUDRAGOUDA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 8. SRI. DEVENDRAGOUDA S/O MUKAREDDEPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 9. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O BADAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 10. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O HANUMANTAPPA PUJARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 11. SMT. LALITAMMA W/O FAKEERAPPA, AGE: MAJOR OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 12. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O BEERAPPA KAPGALLA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 13. SMT. LAXMI W/O FAKEERAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 14. SMT. AMBAMMA W/O ADAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 15. SRI. LAXMAN RAO S/O SAVAREPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 16. SMT. VENKATLAXMI W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 17. SMT. SUNITA W/O OBALESH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 18. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O RAMSWAMY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 19. SRI. SEENU S/O RAMRAJU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 20. SRI. GOPI E. S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 21. SRI. DEVAPPA S/O RANGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 22. SRI. GANESH S/O VENKATRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 23. SRI. RAJU M. S/O BALU, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 24. SRI. RAMKRISHNA S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 25. SRI. SAMBA SHIVARAO S/O JANAKAYYA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 26. SMT. C.H. PREMILA W/O SUBBARAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 27. SRI. SUBBARAO S/O NARAYANMURTHY, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 28. SMT. AMBAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 29. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O ANAND, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 30. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 31. SMT. PREMILA W/O SANJEEVRAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 32. SMT. MAHIMUDA BEGUM W/O MOULA HUSSAIN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 33. SMT. ERAMMA W/O SHARANABASAVA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128. 34. SRI. VIJAYKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER, GOREBAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAYA T. R., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R15, R25 & R34) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 09.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-D CONSEQUENTLY THE REQUISITION (REPRESENTATION ) DATED 04.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) Respondent Nos. 15, 25 and 34 have filed statement of objections. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the notice dated 09.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D and the requisition (representation) dated 04.04.2025 at Annexure-C. 3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as under: The petitioner was elected as member of the Gram Panchayat, Gorebal, Raichur Taluk and District. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 members of the Gram Panchayat approached respondent No.3 on 04.04.2025 with an intention to move no- confidence motion against the petitioner-President. On receipt of the said representation, on 09.04.2025 respondent No.3 issued notice to initiate no-confidence motion against the petitioner fixing the meeting on 28.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned notice has filed this writ petition. 4. Respondent Nos.15, 25 and 34 have filed statement of objection contending that they have moved no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 04.04.2025 on the ground that petitioner being President is not discharging her duties properly. It is stated that at the time of moving no-confidence motion, out of 31 members of the Gram Panchayat, 27 members have signed the no- confidence motion. At the time of moving no-confidence motion, all 27 members were present before respondent No.3, however, respondent No.3 has allowed only three members in his Chamber for giving the representation to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 him and photographs were taken at the time of submitting the representation dated 04.04.2025. Respondent No.3 on receiving the representation of no-confidence motion from 27 members of the Gram Panchayat, he convened meeting by fixing the date of meeting as 28.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. It is stated that the petitioner by suppressing these facts has filed this writ petition and obtained an interim order. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard the arguments of Sri.Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Maya T.R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel for respondent Nos.15, 25 and 34. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice does not indicate that it is signed by two members and personal delivery thereof as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘Rules of 1994’) and the said requirement is mandatory. Non-compliance of mandatory provision would vitiate calling of the meeting itself. He also submits that the requisition submitted by the respondent- members is not in Form No.I and contents thereof is also different. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that when members of Gram Panchayat submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 04.04.2025, more than two persons were present. Further, respondent No.3 has produced photographs to show that three persons were physically present before respondent No.3 while submitting representation. Hence, the requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 is complied with. 8. To buttress her arguments, she placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.Gagana vs. State of Karnataka - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 and others in W.A.No.160/2025 disposed of on 16.03.2025. She also places reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Kavita and another vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.201001/2025 disposed of on 16.04.2025. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition. 9. Learned counsel Sri.Basavaraj R.Math adopts the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the President of Gorebal Gram Panchayat and the members of the Gram Panchayat moved no-confidence motion against the petitioner by submitting a representation dated 04.04.2025 to respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 12. In order to deal with the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘Act of 1993’) which reads as under: "49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- (1) Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within the first fifteen months from the date of his election: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within six months from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat." 13. Section 49 of the Act of 1993 deals with motion of no-confidence against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. The first proviso provides that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members and with minimum ten days of notice to move the resolution. The second proviso bars moving of no-confidence motion within first fifteen months from the date of election of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. 14. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 reads as under: "3. Motion of No-confidence. - (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by [not less than specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person [specified under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person] by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. (3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. (a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) by registered posts; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Grama panchayat. (4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two third of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at such meeting. Explanation-For determination of two third of total number of members under this sub-rule any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) to (11) … … …” - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 15. The said Rule provides that motion of no- confidence shall be submitted in Form No.I and that it shall be signed by not less than specified number of members mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993. It further envisages that the proposed motion shall be delivered in person. In the present case, 27 members of the Gram Panchayat moved no-confidence motion against the petitioner making allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner is not properly discharging her duties. 16. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is breach of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. The members have not physically presented the representation to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed an affidavit on 05.05.2025 wherein he has stated that pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2025, he has filed affidavit relating to the documents and contentions raised by the contesting respondents. He has stated that while the representation - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 was submitted to him on 04.04.2025, more than two persons were present. Date and time, stamped photographs along with the detailed information of photographs captured during the submission of the representation by the members of the Gorebal Gram Panchayat have been enclosed which disclose that three members of the Gorebal Gram Panchayat submitted the representation to respondent No.3. The petitioner has not filed counter affidavit denying the contents of the affidavit filed by respondent No.3. As observed above, 27 members of the Gram Panchayat have signed no-confidence motion and the same was submitted to respondent No.3. Respondent No. 3 has followed the procedure and complied with the applicable legal provisions. 17. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case stated supra i.e., in W.A.No.160/2025 has observed as under. “6.5 The distinction between the 'irregularity' and 'illegality' is well maintained in law. It is trite that procedural lapse which does not have the bearing - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 on the rights of the parties is always condonable. It would not have per se legal consequences. It is only the substantive breach which will have the vitiating effect. All defects of substantive nature would be prone to have the adverse effect on the rights of the parties, whereas when an irregularity has occurred which is not in the nature of illegality, the consequence in law may not arise at all. 6.5.1 In Law Lexicon by R. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997 Edition, irregularity is defined as "a neglect of order or method; not according to regulations; the doing of an act at an unreasonable time, or in an improper manner; the technical term for every defect in practical proceedings or the mode of conducting an action or defence, as distinguished from defects in pleading. Irregularity is failure to observe that particular course of proceedings which, conformable with the practice of the court, ought to have been observed". 6.5.2 An illegality is something which amounts to substantial failure in compliance of requirement. It denotes such breach of rule or requirement which alters the position of a party in terms of his rights or obligations. Illegality denotes a complete defect in the jurisdiction or proceedings. Illegality is properly predictable in its radical defects. It is a situation contrary to the principle of law. As against - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 this, an irregularity as defined lexicographically, is want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceedings. It consist in omitting the rule something that is necessary for due and orderly conducting of a suit or doing it in an unreasonable time or improper manner. 6.5.3 A thing irregularly done is not regularly done. It is not in conformity of rule or principle. The concepts "illegal", "irregular" and "procedurally irregular", are often understood in terms of their degree which they bear to be not in conformity with rule of particular course of action. The illegality is a breach of law in substantive way and in its high degree which will taint and vitiate the action. 6.5.4 One who commits "illegality" has to be denied the assertion of his right and he stands disentitled to relief in law. Irregularity, as noticed, is breach of procedure of rule or some orderly conduct but not of such nature which could be said to be in the nature of a debilitating defect. It is pardonable in law. The concept of procedural irregularity is indicative of lapse of minor nature in procedure which could not affect adversely rights of a party, nor would exceptionally reverse the obligation of the other side. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 6.6 In the present case if the aspect that the No- Confidence Motion had the seal of the Panchayat Development Officer, it was never an illegality but at the best could be viewed as a procedural abrasion. 6.7 In view of the discussions and the reasons supplied above, the order of dismissal of the petition and refusal to grant relief to the petitioner by learned Single Judge did not book any error. The impugned order warrants no interference.” 18. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court considering Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 held that concept of procedural irregularity is indicative of lapse of minor nature in procedure which could not affect adversely rights of a party nor would exceptionally reverse the obligation of the other side. 19. On perusal of the photographs produced by respondent No.3 and contesting respondents, it discloses that three members have submitted a representation to respondent No.3. Thus, it is clear that there is no violation of provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2606 WP No. 201171 of 2025 20. Considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.160/2025, I do not find any illegality in the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3. 21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Respondent No.3 is directed to proceed with no- confidence motion in accordance with law. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:SI