- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100785 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SRI PUNDALIK S/O FAKKIRAPPA UPPAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT OF MADLUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O.MADLUR, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, 3 RD FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591101. 3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, TALUK- SAUNDATTI DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 4. SRI LAXMAN CHANNAPPA HOTTENAVAR, AGE-70 YEARS, OCC.- MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 5. SRI. SOMAPPA BASAPPA KALLOLLI, AGE-. 40 YEARS, OCC.- MEMBER GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.14 15:25:51 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591126. 6. SMT. DODDAVVA PRABHU NAGANUR, AGE- 30 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591126. 7. SMT. LAXMI FAKIRAPPA HOTTENAVAR, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591126. 8. SMT. SHIVAMMA SANGAPPA SOPADLA AGE-32 YEARS, OCC.- MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591126. 9. SMT. SANGAVVA DYAMAPPA KURI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 10. SRI KARIYAPPA SIDDAPPA PUJAR AGE-48 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 11. SRI. ASHOK RUDRAPPA YARAZARVI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 12. SMT. KASTURI TUKARAM BENAKATTI AGE-60 YEARS, OCC.- MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT.- BELAGAVI-591126. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 13. SMT FAKIRAVVA MAHADEV HOOLI AGE- 32 YEARS, OCC.- MEMBER, OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK- YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126. 14. SMT NAGAVVA MALLIKARJUN LAKKAPPANNAVAR AGE- 32 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-591126. 15. SMT. MAHADEVI SHANKAR BARKI AGE-32 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O BENAKATTI, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT-ELAGAVI-591126. 16. SMT. ANITA BASAVARAJ SUNAGAR AGE-40 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK-YARAGATTI, DISTRICT- BELAGAVI-591126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R2, SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-R16, SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE NO.CHUNAVANE/ VW/-119/2024-25 DATED 22.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND PROCEEDINGS THERE UNDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REQUISITION DATED 21.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NOs.4 TO 16 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the notice no.chunavane/vw/-119/2024-25 dated 22.01.2025 issued by the second respondent and proceedings there under vide Annexure-A. (B) A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned requisition dated 21.01.2025 submitted by the respondent nos.4 to 16 vide Annexure-E. (C) Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent No.2 dated 22.01.2025 fixing the date of consideration of no confidence motion on 10.02.2025 at 11:00 a.m., at the office of the Gram Panchayat, Madlur. 3. The submission of learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond for the petitioner is that firstly the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 Form-II is not accompanied by the proposed motion/requisition notice issued by the Gram Panchayat members, therefore, the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner is non est and cannot be acted upon. 4. Secondly he submits that an earlier challenge having been made to a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, this Court vide its order dated 20.01.2025 passed in WP.No.100107/2025(LB-RES) having upheld the same and quashed the said notification and as such, no requisition/notice could have been submitted by the members of the Gram Panchayat for a period of 30 days, in terms of Sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj And Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘Rules, 1994’). 5. Lastly, he submits that the members of Gram Panchayat had to provide 10 days clear notice to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 the Assistant Commissioner of their proposal to move the no confidence motion. It is only after the expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of the requisition/notice that the Assistant Commissioner could issue any notice in terms of Form No.II under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. On all the above 3 grounds he submits that the impugned notice dated 22.01.2025 at Annexure-A is required to be quashed. 6. Learned AGA would submit that the first two points raised by the counsel for the petitioner covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sharanamma W/o.Amaregouda Patil vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot and Others in WP.100675/2025 and submits that there is no requirement to enclose the requisition notice issued in terms of Form No.I along with a notice in Form No.II and the Assistant Commissioner was not required to wait for 30 days after quashing of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 earlier notice in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Rules, 1994. 7. 7. Insofar as 3rd submission made by Sri H.M. Dharigond that the period of notice indicated in the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act, 1993’) is as regards the period between the date of notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the date of meeting and not between the date on which the requisition/notice is submitted to the Assistant Commissioner and the date on which the Assistant Commissioner is to issue a notice in terms of Form No.II and as such, he submits that the 3rd submission made by learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond also cannot be accepted and the petition is required to be dismissed. 8. Sri Jagadish Patil learned counsel has entered for caveator/respondents No.4 to 16 submits that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 respondents No.4 to 16 have unfortunately been required to move the notice of no confidence on 2 earlier occasions and this being the 3rd occasion, the members of the Gram Panchayat have been deprived of their democratic right to move a no confidence motion. The technical arguments which have been advanced cannot be countenanced either under law or facts and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed having made out no grounds. 9. Heard Sri H.M.Dharigond learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel Sri Jagadish Patil appearing for respondents No.4 to 16 and perused the papers. 10. Points that would arise for determination are, (I) Whether the requisition notice in terms of Form No.I is required to be enclosed along with the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Form No.II of the Rules of 1994. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 (II) Whether the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for a period of 30 days after a successful challenge to the earlier notice issued fixing a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion. (III) Whether 10 days notice has to be given by the requisitionists to the Assistant Commissioner and or that the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for 10 days after receipt of the requisition/notice before issuing a notice in terms of Form No.II of the Rules of 1994? (IV) What order? 11. Answer to the above point No.I : Whether the requisition notice in terms of Form No.I is required to be enclosed along with the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Form No.II of the Rules of 1994. 12. This issue is no longer res integra, this Court has dealt with in WP.No.100675/2025 hence I answer - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 point No.I by holding that Form No.I is not required to be enclosed along with Form No.II. 13. Answer to the above point No.II: Whether the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for a period of 30 days after a successful challenge to the earlier notice issued fixing a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion. 14. This point has also been answered in the same matter (i.e., in WP.No.100675/2025) what is required to be seen is that in the order passed in W.P.No.100107/2025 on 20.01.2025 liberty was reserved to respondents No.4 to 16 to submit a fresh requisition notice. 15. The fresh requisition notice having been submitted on 21.01.2025. The notice in Form No.II was issued on 22.01.2025 and served on the petitioner on 23.01.2025 that is to say that the requisition/notice was issued after the quashing of the earlier notice - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 in W.P.No.100107/2025 and as such, it cannot be said to be a continuation of the earlier proceedings. 16. As such I answer point No.II by holding that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for a period of 30 days after a successful challenge to the earlier notice issued fixing a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion. 17. Answer to point No.III: Whether 10 days notice has to be given by the requisitionists to the Assistant Commissioner and or that the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for 10 days after receipt of the requisition/notice before issuing a notice in terms of Form No.II of the Rules of 1994? 18. The submission of learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond for the petitioner is that in terms of the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 the requisitions are required to provide 10 days clear notice to the Assistant - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 Commissioner and that the Assistant Commissioner cannot issue any notice under Form No.II till the expiry of 10 days and in this regard he places reliance on a decision of the Full bench of this Court dated 08.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.102077/2022 (LB-RES), more particularly, at para-19 thereof, which is reproduces hereunder for easy reference: “19. In view of the above we hold that the “ten days clear notice” found in First proviso of Section 49 of the Act, has to be duly signed by half of the members of a Panchayath and shall be submitted by any two members signing it, to the concerned Assistant Commissioner. Further, as held by this Full bench in Shankargouda and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in Writ Appeal No.200087/2022, the members of a Panchayath are bound to give ten days notice in Form No.I as stipulated in Rule 3 of the Rules to the concerned Assistant Commissioner, who thereafter, shall, issue notice to all the members convening a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence.” 19. Having considered the submission of learned counsel Sri H.M.Dharigond and having gone through the said paragraph No.19 reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the 10 days clear notice found mentioned in the first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 has to be - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 provided by the Assistant Commissioner and it is thereafter that the Assistant Commissioner has to convene a meeting to consider the no confidence motion. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 requires 10 days notice to be provided by the Assistant Commissioner. 20. The Full bench at paragraph no.18 in the said decision has also observed as under: “18. Turning to the next leg of the reference namely whether the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for the expiry of ten days before issuing a notice to the members to convene a meeting of the members to consider the motion of no confidence, this very bench in the case of Shankargouda and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.A.No.200087/2022 has held that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for ten days and that the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in M. Puttegowda (supra), does not require any reconsideration.” 21. By referring to another decision of Full Bench in W.A.No.200087/2022 what is seen is that the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha be provided with 10 days notice of the meeting scheduled for consideration of no confidence motion. There would be no requirement of 10 days notice to be given to - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 the Assistant Commissioner since the Assistant Commissioner is not answering any grievance. The Assistant Commissioner would only be required to act on the requisition/notice submitted by the Gram Panchayat members and as such, the Assistant Commissioner would have nothing to do while waiting for 10 days since the Assistant Commissioner is not answering any grievance as aforesaid. 22. The Assistant Commissioner can immediately on receipt of a requisition for no confidence motion, address a notice convening a meeting, however while so convening 10 days clear notice would have to be given to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha against whom the notice of no confidence is moved. 23. Hence, I answer point No.III by holding that the period of 10 days as contained in the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, 1993 refers to 10 days clear notice to the Adhyaksha or - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2348 WP No. 100785 of 2025 Upadhyaksha against whom the no confidence motion is moved and not for the Assistant Commissioner to wait for a period of 10 days prior to issuance of notice in terms of Form No.II of Rules, 1994. 24. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, hence petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK/ CT-GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66