- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. Dr. DEEPIKA LOKESH W/O H. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PRESIDENT OF BEGLIHOSALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT R/AT KALLANDUR VILLAGE BEGLIHOSALLI POST KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101. 3. SRI.CHARANRAJ K.C. MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 4. SMT VARALAKSHMI R. MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 5. SRI S NARAYANASWAMY MAJOR FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, 6. SMT BHAGYAMMA MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 7. SMT PARVATHAMMA MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 8. SMT NARAYANAMMA MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 9. SRI R RAGHU MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 10. SMT SARASWATHI K MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 11. SRI MANJUNATH K R MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 12. SRI M NAGESH MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , 13. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , 14. SRI SRINIASAPPA MAJOR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , 15. SMT MANGALA C MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,. 16. SRI SRINIVASAPPA MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , 17. SMT CHANDANA A V MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 17 ARE MEMBERS OF BEGLIHOSALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, G.A. FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKAT REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R17) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS IN WP NO.33928/2024 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 22/01/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.33928/2024, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN WP NO.33928/2024. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul S. Reddy for the appellant-original petitioner, learned Government Advocate Mr..K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate Mr..V. Srinivasa assisted by learned advocate Mr..C.M..Venkat Reddy for respondent Nos.3 to 17. 2. The challenge in this appeal is addressed to the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2025, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed and the prayers made in the petition came to be negatived. 3. The petitioner was aggrieved by a motion of no-confidence moved by 15 members of the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the motion moved with requisite majority of the members, the Competent Authority-the Assistant Commissioner, convened a special meeting. The petitioner called in question the said exercise, by filing the petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 4. Before learned Single Judge as well as this Court in appeal, the solitary argument which was advanced by learned advocate for the appellant was that before moving no-confidence motion, the opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner held the post of Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat. 5. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed in paragraph 6 that as per Rule 3(7) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, the panchayat would consider the motion of no-confidence without hearing any debate. It is rightly observed that merely because a motion is made, it cannot be treated to be an automatic stigma. 5.1 Learned Single Judge observed correctly further that reasons given in the no-confidence motion could be merely the cause for which the members intend to move a motion of no-confidence and it will not require any inquiry or hearing to be given to the petitioner. The motion of no-confidence is not a stigma attached in the sense as understood in service jurisprudence. The submission is entirely misconceived. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 6. Learned advocate for the appellant sought to rely on Section 48 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The said section deals with the resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to provide in its Sub-section (4) that before taking the action of removal, an opportunity should be provided to Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, as the case may be. The said provision is not applicable here inasmuch as it deals with the situation of resignation or removal of Adhyaksha. 6.1 Conceptually, motion of no-confidence is entirely different than removal, where no hearing would be required. Motion of no- confidence is a democratic process, whereby Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha could be unseated by democratically elected body, once he/she loses confidence of the members of the requisite majority which may be statutorily prescribed in the provision permitting the moving of the no-confidence. 7. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge is eminently just, proper and legal, no interference is called for. The appeal is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB WA No. 174 of 2025 In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1