- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 15281 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.THIMMAKKA W/O. KENGANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PRESIDENT, KURUBARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI, SHIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 115 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132. 3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KURUBARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI, SHIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 115 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION NOTICE DTD.13/5/2025 FIXING THE NO CONFIDENCE MOTION ON 03/06/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE OFFICE OF THE KURUBARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER ANNEXURE – B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who was initially elected as the Vice President of respondent No.3 – Grama Panchayath during her first term and subsequently as the President in her second term, has approached this Court challenging the initiation and conclusion of a No Confidence Motion moved against her by the members of the said Grama Panchayath. 2. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings culminating in the passing of the No Confidence Motion are - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPR Rules, 1994'). It is submitted that the requisition submitted by the elected members intending to move a No Confidence Motion was not duly communicated by the Assistant Commissioner, as required under Rule 3(1) read with Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 3. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Mallamma and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Others1, learned counsel contends that the failure to annex the requisition along with the notice vitiates the entire proceedings. It is argued that the Assistant Commissioner acted mechanically and failed to comply with the statutory safeguards, which are designed to 1 (2004) ILR (Kar) 157 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 ensure transparency and procedural fairness in the removal of an elected President of a Panchayath. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the No Confidence Motion was duly scheduled on 03.06.2025 and has been concluded. The petitioner has been voted out, and the confidence of the House has been validly withdrawn. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chetana A. Channabasappa vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.100364/2025, wherein the Court has considered the precise question raised in the present case. 5. The learned AGA further submits that the judgment in Sharada vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.101197/2025 reiterates that there is no requirement under the KPR Rules, 1994 obligating the Assistant Commissioner to annex the requisition of the elected members while issuing the 15-days statutory - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 notice under Rule 3(2). It is submitted that the challenge raised by the petitioner is legally untenable and contrary to the binding precedents laid down by this Court. 6. Having examined the rival contentions and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner regarding non-annexation of the requisition is misplaced. The decisions relied upon by the learned AGA clearly settle the issue, holding that the Assistant Commissioner, upon receiving a requisition for No Confidence Motion, is not required to enclose a copy of such requisition while issuing notice of the meeting under Rule 3(2) of the KPR Rules, 1994. 7. In the absence of any procedural irregularity or legal infirmity in the conduct of the No Confidence Motion by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, this Court finds no merit in the challenge laid by the petitioner. The procedure adopted is in conformity with the statutory mandate, and the petitioner’s removal from office through - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20959 WP No. 15281 of 2025 a validly concluded motion cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12