- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2174 WP No. 100747 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100747 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SUVARNA M MAJALIKAR D/O MARUTI GAONKAR AGE. 49 YEARS OCC. PRESIDENT OF GHADSAI GRAM PANCHAYAT R/O. 629, NEAR NARAYAN TEMPLE HALGA, GHADASI KARWAR TALUK-581328 U.K.DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN P. TARIKAR,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER KARWAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSION OFFICE UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581322. 2. CHETAN G BANDEKAR S/O GOKULDAS BAMDEKAR AGE. 60 YEARS R/O. MADHEWADA HALAGA GHADASI VILLAGE-581328 KARWAR TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 3. GIRISH K KOTHARKAR S/O KRISHNA KOTHARKAR AGE. 50 YEARS R/O. HALAGAJOG KARWAR TALUK-581328 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2174 WP No. 100747 of 2025 4. CHANDA VIJAY NAIK W/O VIJAY NAIK AGE. 49 YEARS R/O. POST ULAGA KARWAR TALUK-583229 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 5. SUDHA S NAIK W/O SHYAM NAIK AGE. 45 YEARS R/O. KOTRE BOLASHITTA KARWAR TALUK-551328 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 6. BALTISH DUMING BARETTO S/O DUMMING BARRETTO AGE. 50 YEARS R/O. ULAGA VILLAGE, KARWAR TALUK-583229 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 7. SHARAD DINA NAIK S/O DINA NAIK AGE. 48 YEARS R/O. KOTNE BOLASHITTA GHADASAI KARWAR TALUK-551328 8. ANITA A HALAGEKAR W/O ANANDU HALAGEKAR AGE. 40 YEARS R/O.HALGA, GHADASAI-583229 KARWAR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT 9. SAPNA S MALAVANKAR W/O SANTOSH MALAVANKAR AGE. 40 YEARS R/O. ULLAGA KARWAR TALUK UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-583228. 10. MANGESH K GOVEKAR S/O KRISHNA GOVEKAR AGE. 47 YEARS R/O. HALGA, GHADASAI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2174 WP No. 100747 of 2025 KARWAR TALUK-583229 UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R10 IS D/W V/O/D 04.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED. 18-01-2025 BEARING NO. ACKWR-ELE0GPE/03/2024 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondents No.2 to 10 is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 18.01.2025 bearing No. ACKWR- ELEOGPE/03/2024 issued by 1st Respondent for no confidence motion against the petitioner at Annexure-A. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2174 WP No. 100747 of 2025 ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 18.01.2025 issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner fixing the meeting for consideration of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ to be held on 5.2.2025 at 12.00 noon. 4. The submission of Sri.Praveen P.Tarikar., learned counsel for the petitioner is that along with the notice in Form No.2 issued by the respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner, the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 has not been enclosed. And as such, he submits that the said notice in Form No.2 suffers from infraction of Sub- rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. 5. Heard Sri.Praveen P.Tarikar., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2174 WP No. 100747 of 2025 Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath., learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1. Perused papers. 6. The issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer res integra. This issue has been considered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Laxmavva vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028, where it has been categorically held that the requisition notice or the proposed motion is not required to be enclosed along with the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The said judgment would be equally applicable to the present case. 7. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1