- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19725 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNASWAMY .T.P S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT THAGAHALLI PO SUB DIVISION MADDUR MANDYA DISTRICT - 571425. PRESIDENT OF TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT TAGGAHALLI, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ANIL KUMAR .R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TAGGAHALLI, KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571425. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION MANDYA - 573201. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 4. MANJUNATHA .M.B S/O M.C. BILIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MOODYA VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 5. SMT. SUNANDAMMA W/O CHIKKAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MOODYA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI MADDUR TALU, MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 6. VIJAY S. GOWDA S/O LATE SHIVANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT ARAGINAMELE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 7. SIDDEGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA P ANCHAYAT - 571425. 8. SMT. ROOPA W/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT TAGGAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 9. SUNIL KUMAR .L S/O LAKSHMANA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT TAGGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 10. SMT. RADHA GOVINDA W/O B C GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT TAGGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 11. PUTTASWAMY S/O NARASINGACHAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT SINGONAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 12. SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 13. SMT. MANJULA W/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT CHIKKONAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 14. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 R/AT TAGGAHALLI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 15. SMT. SAVITHA W/O SRINIVASA AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT HARALAKERE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 16. RAMADAS .H.M S/O CHIKKONU AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT HARALAKERE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. 17. SMT. ARATHI W/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HARALAKERE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MEMBER TAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT - 571425. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AAG A/W SRI. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O/D 07.07.2025 NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.06.2025 BEARING NO. E.L.N.36/2025-26 PRODUCED AT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 ANNEXURE-A AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM 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 Petitioner who is elected as a President of respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat is assailing the No-confidence Motion initiated by private respondent Nos.4 to 13 dated 26.06.2025. 2. Petitioner's challenge to the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A is primarily on the ground that it is clearly found in gross violation of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Referring to the date of issuance of notice, petitioner claims that a clear 15 days time is not stipulated by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 view of infraction of the mandate provided under Rule 3(3), the impugned notice is not sustainable. 3. The second limb of contention/objections to the impugned notice vide Annexure-A is that a requisition tendered by private respondent Nos.4 to 13/members of respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat is not in the prescribed format provided under Form No.1 of Rules 1994. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG appearing for the State and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records. 5. Upon careful examination of the records, this Court finds merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the relevant Rules does not conform to the mandatory timeline prescribed therein. Rule 3(2) expressly mandates that a clear notice of not less than 15 days must be given to the members - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 concerned, enabling them to consider and participate in the No-Confidence Motion in a fair and informed manner. 6. In the present case, it is seen that the Assistant Commissioner issued the notice on 27.06.2025, and the meeting to consider the No-Confidence Motion was scheduled for 08.07.2025. A bare perusal of these dates makes it evident that the mandatory period of 15 clear days has not been adhered to, resulting in a procedural irregularity and violation of the statutory requirement under Rule 3(2). The requirement of "clear 15 days" is not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard intended to ensure adequate opportunity for participation by all members concerned. 7. In view of the clear infraction of the mandatory notice period, the proceedings undertaken on the basis of such defective notice cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the Assistant Commissioner is required to initiate the process - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 afresh, strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 3(1) and (2) of the relevant Rules, by issuing proper and timely notice in compliance with the statutory mandate. 8. However, the second limb of the argument advanced by the petitioner namely, that the requisition submitted by the private respondents is not in conformity with Form No.1 as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 cannot be accepted. 9. Upon a closer scrutiny of the requisition placed on record, which is produced at Annexure–B, this Court is of the considered view that the said requisition substantially and materially complies with the format and requirements contemplated under Form No.1 read with Rule 3(1) of the 1994 Rules. The requisition clearly discloses the names and signatures of the requisite - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 number of members, sets out the intention to move a No- Confidence Motion against the Adhyaksha, and specifies the grounds, thereby satisfying the essential components of the prescribed form. The mere non-mention of certain formal aspects or minor deviations in wording, if any, cannot render the requisition invalid, particularly when the substance and purpose of the statutory requirement are fulfilled. As such, the procedural compliance with Rule 3(1) stands satisfied, and no infirmity can be found in the manner in which the requisition was tendered by the private respondents. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) The impugned notice dated 27.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A and the impugned request letter dated 26.06.2025 made by respondent Nos.4 to 13 are hereby quashed; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25079 WP No. 19725 of 2025 (iii) The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner shall re-do the process of No- confidence Motion strictly adhering to the mandate provided under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37