- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.VIRUPAKSHI S/O.LATE.DODDALAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ADHAYKSHA, TUMKURLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TUMKURLAHALLI, MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. 3. THE TUMKURLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, TUMKURLAHALLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM SECRETARY. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 4. SMT.ANJINAMMA, W/O.T.H.OBANNA, MAJOR. 5. SMT.SHAKUNTALAMMA, W/O. THIPPESWAMY, MAJOR. 6. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O.OBANNA, MAJOR. 7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O. THIPPESWAMY, MAJOR. 8. SMT. MAMATHA, W/O.CHANDRANNA, MAJOR. 9. SMT.PAPAMMA, W/O.K.O.CHANNAPPA, MAJOR. 10. SMT.SANGAMMA G., W/O.MEGHARAJ, MAJOR. 11. SMT ANUSUAYAMMA T S W/OLATE HEMMANNA MAJOR 12. SMT BHAGYAMMA W/O JAGALURAIAH MAJOR, 13. SMT LASUMAKKA W/O ERANNA MAJOR 14. SMT BASAMMA W/O NARAGAIAH MAJOR 15. SRI NAGARAJU W/O KALLEEL PALAIAH MAJOR 16. SRI OBALESH S/O M THIPPESWAMY MAJOR 17. SRI O CHIKKOBANNAHALLI KARIBASAPPA S/O OBAIAH MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 18. SRI H M NAGABHUSHANA W/O HIREHALLI MUTTAPPA MAJOR 19. SRI OBANNA S/O BASAIAH MAJOR 20. SRI MALLESH S/O H OBAIAH MAJOR 21. SRI JANGAMA KAMAIAH S/O KAMAIAH MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF TUMUKURLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, TUMUKURLAHALLI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-16, 17 & 19) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. CHUNAVANE/CR/142/2024-25 DTD 23.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G, ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. A requisition was given by eighteen (18) members of the Gram Panchayat proposing to the Assistant Commissioner stating that they intend to move a motion of No-confidence against the petitioner. 2. The Assistant Commissioner acted upon the said requisition and issued a notice to all the members including the petitioner. 3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, by which he had convened a meeting on 16.01.2025 for considering the proposed motion of No-confidence. 4. This Court by an order dated 13.01.2025 permitted the meeting scheduled to be conducted on 16.01.2025 to go on, but made it clear that the result of the said meeting would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 5. Pursuant to the said order, the meeting was conducted on 16.01.2025, wherein the motion of No- confidence was successfully passed against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed under the Rules has not been followed in as much as the petitioner was not served with a copy of the proposed motion of No-confidence, as required under the Rules, and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal. 7. Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (Rules) reads as follows- “3. Motion of No-confidence :- (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to S.49 OF THE Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members together - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered 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: 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 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.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 8. As could be seen from Rule 3(1) of the Rules, it is the requisition of the members which is required to be accompanied with the copy of the proposed motion and this is required to be delivered in-person to any of the two members to the Assistant Commissioner. 9. Sub-rule (2), however does not indicate either directly or indirectly that the copy of the proposed motion should once again be furnished to the members by the Assistant Commissioner. In fact, a perusal of Form-II would indicate that the notice to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner was only to inform the members that the meeting was being convened to consider the motion of No-confidence specifying the date of the said meeting. If Rule 3(2) and Form-II are read together, it is obvious that the copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence need not be issued to all the members by the Assistant Commissioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6035 WP No. 659 of 2025 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to place reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Mallamma1 to contend that the copy of the proposed motion of No- confidence shall also be furnished to the petitioner. 11. It is stated that in the said decision neither Rule 3(2) nor Form-II has been considered and the Court was only considering Rule 3(1) of the Rules. I am, therefore, of the view that the said decision can be of no avail to the petitioner. I find no grounds to entertain this Writ Petition. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 12. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 1 Mallamma v. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Panchayath Raj Department and Others, ILR KAR 2002 4253