- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100082 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. AMAREGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, HIRESINGANGUTTI, GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST:BAGALKOT-587154. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT PIN-587154. 2. SRI. SANTOSH B.JAGALASAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, R/O. PWD GOVERNMENT QUARTERS BAGALKOT DIST: BAGALKOT-587154 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125 4. THE SECRETARY, HIRESINGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: ILKAL DIST: BAGALKOT-587125. 5. SMT.MARIYAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA MADAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: VICE PRESIDENT, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 6. SRI.VENKANAGOUDA, S/O. MAHANTAGOUDA AADAPUR, Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 7. SMT.SHARANAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA BANGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 8. SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O. MUTHAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 9. SMT.MEENAKSHI W/O. YAMANAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 10. SMT.HANAMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA HESAROOR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 11. SRI.SANGAPPA BASAPPA MERAKHOOR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 12. SMT.SHEELA W/O. MALLAPPA AWARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 13. SMT.SAVITA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KUDLEPPANAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 14. SRI.YANKAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA KANNERI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 15. SMT.HOLEYAMMA W/O. GANGAPPA CHITAVADAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 16. SRI.GOPAL S/O. LAXMAN PUJARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 17. SRI.MALLAPPA GYANAPPA VAJJAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 18. SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O. DEVAPPA GODDI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 19. SRI.PAKKAPPAGOUDA, S/O. SANGANAGOUDA JADIYAPPAGOUDAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 20. SMT.ANNAPURNA W/O. KALAKAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 21. SRI.SHANTAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA MADAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. 22. SMT.PAVITRA W/O. PRABHUGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. - RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R3 AND R4, MISS. RANJITHA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R22, R2 DELETED V/O. DATED 07.02.2025) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE W.P. NO. 100675/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellant has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in WP No.100675/2025 impugning the ‘No Confidence Motion’ meeting notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the First Respondent, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the competent authority under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj [‘Motion of No Confidence’ against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat] Rules, 1994 [for short, ‘No- Confidence Motion Rules 1994’]. The first respondent has issued the impugned Notice calling for a meeting because of the requisition by the members of Hiresingangutti Gram Panchayat expressing no confidence in the appellant [the President of the Gram Panchayat]. 2. The writ Court has considered the appellant’s grievance in the light of four questions framed for consideration, and these questions read as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 1) Whether the Assistant Commissioner can issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 without a requisition notice having been received in terms of Form No.1? 2) Whether the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to accompany the notice fixing the meeting in terms of Form No.2? 3) Whether on a successful challenge having been made to an earlier notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner cannot issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 fixing the date of meeting until 30 days after the quashing of the earlier notice? 4) Whether the date of receipt of Form No.1 is mandatorily required to be mentioned in Form No.2? At the outset, Mr. Anand R. Kolli, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that in the present proceedings the appellant will confine the grievance to the writ Court’s finding only on the second question viz., whether the requisition notice in Form No. I under No Confidence Motion - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 Rules, 1994 must be accompanied the meeting notice in Form No. II under Rule [2] of the aforesaid Rules. 3. Mr. Anand R. Kolli contends that the Court has answered all the questions against the appellant essentially in view of the proposition exposited by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka represented by Secretary and Others1, but a distinction has to be made as the appellant’s grievance is not about the first respondent’s failure to send a copy of the requisition in Form No. I along with Form No .II and it is because of the first respondent’s failure to furnish a copy of the resolution that is proposed by the requisite member of the Panchayat members expressing no confidence in the appellant. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Anand R. Kolli canvasses that furnishing a copy of Form No. I may not be mandatory, but, given the language of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [Act 1993], a copy of 1 ILR 2007 KAR 1028 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 the motion proposed by the requisite number of members a panchayat must be furnished along with Form No. II and that otherwise an office bearer who has to face ‘No Confidence Motion’ will not know who have moved the motion against him. 5. Mr. J.M. Gangadhar, the learned Additional Advocate General who is supported by Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate and Ms.Ranjita Alagawadi, submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Laxmavva has exposited that failing to enclose requisition in Form No. I to Form No. II will not be fatal and the democratic process need not be interdicted if the concerned does not show prejudice by such failure and if Form No. II substantially complies with the requirement of Rule 3(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules 1994. Mr.J.M.Gangadhar emphasizes that the proposition in Laxmavva supra is again reiterated by another Co-ordinate Bench in Smt. Parvathi and Another Vs. State of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Others2. 6. Mr. Anand R. Kolli, when queried extending an opportunity to make his submissions in rejoinder, is categorical that the appellant has not specifically averred in the petition that a copy of the proposed resolution, as is required under Rule 3(1) of the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1994, is not furnished, but the learned counsel contends that this Court must decide on whether Form No. II must be accompanied by a copy of the motion proposed by one half of the total number of members. 7. 7. The question: whether the attempted distinction between a proposed motion of no confidence and a motion that is approved by the requisite members of the Gram Panchayat as contemplated under Section 49 of the Act 1993 is really tenuous when examined in the backdrop of the scheme that is contained in Rule 3 of the No Confidence Motion Rules 1994 which is to ensure that there is due 2 ILR 2019 KAR 3193 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 compliance with the requirement of Section 49 and the contents of Form No. I and II. 8. The relevant part of Section 49[1] of the Act 1993 and Rule 3[1] and [2] of the No Confidence Motion Rules 1994 read as here under: Section 49 [1] of the Act 1993: Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: Rule 3 [1] and [2] of the Gram Panchayat No Confidence Motion Rules, 1994 Motion of No-confidence.- (1) A written notice of intention to move the motion under the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 49 of the Act shall be in Form- I Signed by one of half - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 of the members of the total elected number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner of the concerned district. (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Taluk Panchayath on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than fifteen days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was given to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than ten clear days of such meeting in Form II. The underlining is by this Court 9. Mr. Anand R. Kolli relies upon the expression together with a copy of the proposed motion as found in Rule 3[1] of the No Confidence Motion Rules 1993 to draw support for the proposition propounded by him. Crucially, one half of the members of the total elected number of members of Panchayat can make their requisition with the intention of moving a No-confidence motion, either against the Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha, [as is envisaged under Rule 3[1] of the No-confidence Rules 1994], to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner in Form No. I. The Assistant Commissioner, upon receipt of such requisition, must: [a] convene a meeting of all the panchayat members for consideration of the intention to move the motion of no confidence at the office of the concerned Gram Panchayat on the day appointed by him which shall not be later than 15 days of the date on which the requisition is delivered in Form No.1. [b] ensure that there is a clear 10 days’ notice to the members in Form No. II. 10. The Form No. II when served on the members is a notice to them that the meeting for a No- confidence against either Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha will be held on the appointed day and they are requested to attend such meeting. Thus, the process for a No Confidence Motion starts with the communication of the intention by the prescribed number of panchayat members to the Assistant Commissioner with a requisition for meeting and culminates when the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 intention is carried by the requisite number of members in the meeting held on the appointed day. 11. If Mr. Anand R. Kolli’s canvass is to be accepted, this Court will have to infer an irreversible decision to express no-confidence in the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha by the one half of the members of the total elected number of members to even make a requisition under Rule 3 of the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1994. The motion proposed by one half of the panchayat members, based upon which requisition is filed in Form I, will only be on the anvil [as a proposal], until endorsed by not less than two third of the total number of persons of the Gram Panchayat with room for debate and discussions. As such, the requirement which is now canvassed will be a requirement that will have to be read into the Rule, and this requirement cannot be read in only because of the expression together with a copy of the proposed motion in Rule 3[1] of these rules. 12. The first proviso to section 49 of the Act 1993 mandates at least 10 days notice of the intention to move the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2425-DB WA No. 100082 of 2025 resolution, and the Rules framed to lay down procedure for the same cannot bring in a requirement beyond what is stipulated under the Act. When the provisions of Rule 3 of the No-confidence Rules, 1994 are read accordingly there will be no ambiguity, especially with the Rules prescribing Form No. I and II to deliver the requisition/intention to the Assistant Commissioner and to communicate the date of the meeting by the Assistant Commissioner. This Court cannot read into the statutory provisions a requirement when the provisions do not admit any ambiguity. In the light of the afore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the writ Court’s order on the grounds urged. Hence, the Writ appeal is rejected. All the pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/ct-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5