- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 8569 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALAKKA W/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CHIKKERAHALLI VILLAGE, PRESIDENT OF CHIKKERAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHIKKERAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 535. 4. PRABHAKAR H. M S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER OF CHIKKERAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 535. 5. K. VANITHA @ K. VASANTH AGE: MAJOR, 6. MANJAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 7. JAYAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 8. V. VIJAYALAXMI W/O RAMESH, AGE: MAJOR. 9. KOLLAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 10. MEENAKSHI W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 11. M. GEETHA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 12. JAMRUDDU BEGUM W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 13. SHIVAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, 14. SHIVAGANGAMMA W/O NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR, THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 14 ARE MEMBER OF THE CHIKKERAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOLAKALMUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8, R10 TO R12, R14) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ANNEXURE-C ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. CHUNAVANE:CR:194/ 2024-25 DTD. 06.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has called in question the validity of the proceedings relating to No Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner who is the President of the Grama Panchayat. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the motion of no confidence being moved before the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Annexure-B on 06.03.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice fixing the date for considering the said no confidence motion on 24.03.2025. It is submitted that in terms of the notice at Annexure-B, reference made to the requisition made by the members on 03.03.2025 is clear, and if that were to be so, in terms of the first proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, necessary action must be taken by the Assistant Commissioner after ten days. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 3. The other contention by the petitioner is that the notice in Form II i.e., issued in terms of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rule') is to be accompanied with the copy of the motion submitted to the Assistant Commissioner and a mere notice without it being accompanied with the motion submitted by the members is bad in law. It is submitted that the notice in Form II in the present case is not accompanied by the Motion of No Confidence submitted to the Assistant Commissioner as contemplated. 4. It is further submitted that the proceedings are moved in a malafide manner in light of the petitioner not having acceded to certain illegal requisition made by the private members. 5. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the writ petition is to be rejected by taking note of the law laid down by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 Division Bench in W.A.No.100415/2022. Insofar as the contention relating to copy of the motion of no confidence being enclosed with Form II, it is submitted that the said aspect has also been considered in the case of Laxmavva vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2007 KAR 1028. 6. Sri. B. M. Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the members adopts the contention of the State and submits that the matter does not merit acceptance. 7. Insofar as the first contention relating to requirement of the Assistant Commissioner to wait for 10 days before taking action in issuing notice to the members by fixing a meeting for considering the motion of no confidence, the very aspect has been considered in various orders as well as in W.A.No.100415/2022. This Court while disposing off the said writ appeal has at Para 11 considered the said aspect. For the purpose of reference, para No.11 is extracted below: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 "No doubt, it is true that giving of notice for ten days is mandatory. However, after discussing various aspects, it is also held, as is made out from the reference, that as regards the Assistant Commissioner, once notice is given by the members, he need not wait for expiry of ten days and that has been reiterated and followed in WP No.102077/2022. Accordingly, that is the only manner in which reference could be understood. We find no such contradiction in terms of answers made to the reference as pointed out above. There is no doubt that notice of ten days must be given by the members and at the same time, the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for expiry of ten days. In the present case, though notice was given by the members on 4.8.2022, the Assistant Commissioner having issued notice on 11.08.2022 though within a period of ten days would not in any way be in contravention of law as answered in the reference. Once the larger Bench has laid down the law, it would not be appropriate for a bench of a lesser strength to reopen the said aspect. On a plain reading of the reference in WA No.200087/2022 and WP No.102077/2022, we find no such ambiguity." 8. In light of the same, it is clear that time that is granted to the Assistant Commissioner is for the Assistant - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 Commissioner to act and the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for the expiry of 10 days. 9. Insofar as the contention regarding affixing the Motion of No Confidence along with notice in Form-II, it must be noticed that the said aspect has also been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Laxmavva vs. State of Karnataka - ILR 2007 KAR 1028. Para No.10 of the said judgment reads as follows: "10. On perusal of the records, especially the written notice, we find that there is substantial compliance of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. In such case, mere attracting (sic) the copy of the proposed motion would be duplicity of the work and that by itself cannot be a ground to set at not (sic) the democratic exercise of the members in functioning of these local Governments. When the notice of the majority members makes it clear their intention, mere non-enclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity and in our view does not cause any prejudice to the other side." 10. It must be noticed that Form-II also does not indicate the requirement of enclosing copy of No Confidence Motion. The Division Bench in the aforesaid - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16256 WP No. 8569 of 2025 judgment of Laxmavva (supra) has noticed that once there is substantial compliance with Rule 3 of the Rules, mere non-attaching of copy of proposed motion would not amount to substantive irregularity and would not cause prejudice to the other side. In light of the same, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 11. Insofar as the contention regarding malafide by the members, it must be noticed that Section 49 of the Act, post its amendment provides for moving motion of no confidence without allegation. If that were to be so, question of considering the aspect of malafides in moving the motion of no confidence does not arise. 12. Accordingly, petition is rejected. Interim direction stands discharged. The Assistant Commissioner to proceed further. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP