- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101197 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SHARDA W/O. RAMESH N., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF SOMASAMUDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURISH SUBHASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY, RURAL AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-560001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SOMASAMUDRA GRAM PANCHAYT, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARI-583101. 5. M. MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARI-583101. 6. KENCHAPPA S/O. KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KURAGODU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. R GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 7. SMT. LAKSHMI S/O. KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 8. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 9. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. ISHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 10. RAJESHWARI W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 11. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O. BASANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 12. SMT. MANJULA W/O. B.N. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 13. SMT. GURUVAR SIDDALINGAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 14. SMT. UMA W/O. KUMARASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 15. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. JALRAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 16. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. KUMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 17. T. RAJESH W/O. IRANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 18. SMT. V. LAKSHMI W/O. MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA, TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6-18) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN NO.SAM/KAM/CHUNVANE// /2024-25 DATED 27-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; 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 ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned notice in No.Sam/Kam/Chunvane/C«±Áé¸À/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ /2024-25 dated 27-01-2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, the copy of which has been produced at Annexure-A; b) 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 ends of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner dated 27.01.2025 fixing the meeting to be held on 19.02.2025 at 11:00 am in the office of the Gram Panchayat for considering the motion for no confidence against the petitioner, who is the Adhyaksha of the Somasamudra Gram Panchayat, Kurugodu Taluk, Bellary District. 3. The submission of Sri. Gourish Subhash Khashampur, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1. A requisition to the Assistant Commissioner having been submitted on 24.01.2025 at - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 Annexure-C, the notice fixing the date of meeting could not have been issued on 27.01.2025, within 3 days from the submission of the requisition notice and this, he submits is contrary to the mandatory requirement under the first provisio to Sub- section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act of 1993’, for short). 3.2. Once a requisition is submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has to wait for 10 days and thereafter issue notice to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be. 3.3. In terms of the first proviso to Sub-section(1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993, no such resolution shall be moved unless a notice of the resolution signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members and at least - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 10 days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. 3.4. There is ambiguity in the first proviso inasmuch as it is not mentioned as to whom the notice of 10 days has to be given, for what purpose, and as such, the rights of the petitioner, who is Adhyaksha, against whom a motion of no confidence is moved, will be adversely affected, without this ambiguity being laid at rest. 3.5. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2022 in the case of Smt.Rajamma W/o. Balanjaneya Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others1, has also come to a conclusion that there is some ambiguity in the said provision. 1 Writ Appeal No.100415/2022 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 3.6. He also relies on the interim orders dated 11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 passed in W.A.No.200026/2025. The Division Bench has stayed the order of the Single Bench in Writ Petition No.102077/2022, on the ground that 10 days notice is required to be issued in terms of the first proviso to Subsection(1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993. 4. Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA, would submit that; 4.1. There is no ambiguity as such. The said issue has been referred to two Full Benches and both the Full Benches have categorically held that the requirement of issuing 10 days notice is directory and not Mandatory. 4.2. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Shankargouda - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors2, more particularly paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 17. If we hypothetically consider a situation when the members submit Form-I on 01.08.2022 and if the Assistant Commissioner has to wait, "at least for clear ten days to act, then he has to issue a notice to the members in Form- II on 12.08.2022 and if fifteen clear days notice to the members ends on 27.08.2022, then the meeting can be held on 28.08.2022, which would be within 30 days from the date of Form-I. This is however subject to the condition that the notice to all the members are served on 12.08.2022 itself, which may or may not happen. If there is a delay of even two days in service of the notice to the members in Form-II, the meeting cannot be held as that would overshoot the thirty days stipulated under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. Therefore, in order to avert the notice being dubbed illegal, the Assistant Commissioner would within ten days ascertain the details of the members who would have signed Form-I and whether all the members are residing within the Grama Panchayat etc. He would have to fix the date of meeting on such date which 2 ILR 2022 KAR 3691 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 does not clash with any of his other official commitments, as he has to preside over the meeting. In that circumstance, he need not wait for ten days to expire to take action to issue notice to convene a meeting. He may, if satisfied initiate the process by issuing the notice in Form-II and fix a date of the meeting of the members at his convenience, even before the expiry of ten days. In this sense, the first proviso to Section 49 becomes directory and this understanding fairly grinds the uneven edges in the machination of the process. 18. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. PUTTEGOWDA, supra, is just and proper and does not require any re- consideration. 4.3. He has also relied upon one more judgment of the full bench in the case of Smt. Hanamavva W/O Hulappa Hirekurabar Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Bagalkot3, more particularly paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 3 ILR 2022 KAR 4953 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 “17. In so far as the contention that in respect of Taluk and Zilla Panchayath, a notice of no confidence has to be first given to Adhyaksha and therefore a similar analogy has to be drawn in respect of a Grama Panchayath, the same is misplaced for more reason the one. The first reason is that the provisions contained in Section 140 and 179 provide for such a procedure. The second reason is that the members to Taluk and Zilla Panchayath are promoted by political parties and are therefore bound by defection rules etc. The third reason is that an Adyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Taluk or Zilla Panchayath, subject to the reservation roster, is elected by the members having a major strength in the house. Therefore, it is that major political party that can call the shots by moving a vote of no confidence. Hence this procedure cannot be applied to Grama Panchayaths where membership to the panchayath is not based on political considerations but the Adyaksha or Upadhyaksha are elected by the members, who have no political lineage. Hence we answer the reference and hold that the "ten days clear notice" found in first proviso to Section 49 of the Act, 1993 has to be given to the Assistant Commissioner which is mandatory and not to the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 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, 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.” 4.4. By relying on the above judgments, he submits that the reference to 10 days clear notice found in the first proviso to Sub- section(1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 has to be given to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the further finding in both the matters is that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for 10 days before issuing a notice to convene a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion, and the said findings of the Full Benches would be binding on this Court. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 4.5. In the present case, the notice having been issued within three days is in accordance with the dicta laid down by the Full Benches in both the above matters. 4.6. As such, he submits that no grounds having been made out, the above petition requires to be dismissed. 5. Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 18, submits that this is third time that respondents No.5 to 18 are moving the motion for no confidence. On the first occasion, since the PDO had affixed the signature and stamp, the notice came to be quashed, on the second occasion, 15 days clear notice had not been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the quashing of the notice and now, on the third occasion, this issue has been raised. He submits that respondents No.5 to 18 have been unable to exercise their democratic rights in moving the no-confidence motion against - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 the Adhyaksha, who has been functioning as Adhyaksha for the last more than 1 ½ years. 6. Heard Sri. Gourish Subhash Khashampur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 to 18. Perused the papers. 7. The short question that would arise for consideration is, “Whether a notice of 10 clear days is required to be furnished by requisitionists to the Assistant Commissioner and whether the Assistant Commissioner is required to wait for 10 day after receipt of the requisition notice before issuing a notice under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayath) - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 Rules, 1994 (‘Rules, 1994’, for short) in Form No.2? 8. In the present case, the requisition notice in Form No.1 of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 had been issued on 24.01.2025 and received by the Assistant Commissioner on the same day. Notice in Form No.2 of Sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 came to be issued to the petitioner on 27.01.2025, and on that basis, it is contended that there is no gap of 10 days from the date on which the requisition notice was submitted to the date on which the Assistant Commissioner issued notice in Form No.2. 9. The Full Bench of this court in Shankargouda’s case (supra), in the aforesaid extracted para 17, has come to the categorical conclusion that the requirement of issuing notice for 10 days is only directory in nature. The Full Bench having come to a conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner would have to fix a date of - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 meeting on such a date which does not clash with any of his other official commitments, as he has to preside over the meeting has held that the Assistant commissioner shall fix a date for the meeting by giving 15 clear days notice to all concerned. It is this 15 days notice to hold a meeting that has been held to be mandatory and the 10 day period is held to be directory. 10. This finding of the Shankaragouda’s case (supra) was reiterated by the very same Full Bench while considering Hanamavva’s case. The Full Bench again has held that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for the expiry of 10 days before issuing notice to the members to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. 11. As such, two Full Benches have arrived at the categorical conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner need not wait for 10 days before issuing notice to the members for the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 commencement of the meeting, I am bound by the said orders of the Full Benches. 12. Therefore, the contention of Sri.Gourish Subhash, Khashampur learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Assistant Commissioner having issued the impugned notice on 27.01.2025 at Annexure-A, without waiting for 10 days is a violation of the mandatory requirement under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 is not sustainable. 13. Reference is also made to the interim order passed in W.A.No.200026/2025, In view of the findings made in the final judgments of two Full Benches, I am of the considered opinion that the interim orders will not aid the case of the petitioner, when the Full Benched have held to the contrary. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194 WP No. 101197 of 2025 14. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed, the meeting as scheduled shall go on. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1