- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30501 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJU T.R. S/O. LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT TAGGAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-570012 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA-570001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA-570001 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION NO.2, MADDUR, THAGGAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA DISTRICT-570001 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THAGGAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.09.2025 IN NO.C-2/GRAM.PANCHU/2025-26 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 UNDER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification bearing No.¹- 2/UÁæ.¥ÀAZÀÄ/2025-26 dated 24.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 (stated as respondent No.3 in the prayer portion of the petition). He has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to appoint an Administrator to Thaggahalli Grama Panchayat till 31.12.2025 or till fresh elections to be conducted - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 by the State Government under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. He has sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to supersede the Thaggahalli Gram Panchayat and appoint an Administrator till elections to the Gram Panchayat are held in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Thaggahalli village. He contends that in the election conducted to the post of President and Vice President of Thaggahalli Gram Panchayat (henceforth referred to as ‘Gram Panchayat’ for brevity), one Mr. Krishnaswamy T.D. was appointed as President. The elected members of the Gram Panchayat moved a no- confidence motion against the said Mr. Krishnaswamy T.D. on 16.08.2025 and accordingly, he was removed from the post of President. Thereafter, one Mr. Sunil Kumar L., was appointed as President of Thaggahalli Gram Panchayat on 01.09.2025. The petitioner claims that from the date of his appointment, there was no general body meeting conducted and Public Works were affected and no payments were made to the beneficiaries under the various schemes which were provided by the Central Government as well as the State Government to the Gram - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 Panchayat. It is stated that the term of the Gram Panchayat ended on 30.12.2025. In the meanwhile, in order to have the benefit of being called a President, Mr. Sunil Kumar L. was elected as President on 01.09.2025. He submitted his resignation on 11.09.2025 i.e within a period of 10 days on the ground of ill health making way for appointment of new President to the Thaggahalli Gram Panchayat for a period of three months. The petitioner and other villagers submitted representation on 19.09.2025 to the respondent No.3 not to accept the resignation on the ground that the said Mr. Sunil Kumar L. was hale and healthy and had participated in a public function. The petitioner claims that though representation was submitted to the respondent No.3, he accepted the resignation of Mr. Sunil Kumar L. and issued a notification fixing the date for election of President as 09.10.2025. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the notification dated 24.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 and for directions to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resignation of the erstwhile President was a charade, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 designed to install another President on a rotation basis for the remaining 3 months. He submits that it has affected the functioning of the Gram Panchayat and also affected the residents. He, therefore, prays that the impugned notification issued by the respondent No.3 be quashed and an Administrator be appointed. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other hand submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the resignation of the erstwhile President and the issuance of a notification by the respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Be that as it may, he contends that since the President of the Gram Panchayat has resigned, the impugned notification issued by the respondent No.4 is in accordance with law and no interference is warranted by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39683 WP No. 30501 of 2025 6. The petitioner is a resident of Thaggahalli village which is administered by a Gram Panchayat. The President of the Gram Panchayat was removed by a motion of no- confidence on 16.08.2025. Thereafter, one Mr.Sunil Kumar L. was elected as the President of Gram Panchayat on 01.09.2025. He, however, submitted his resignation on 11.09.2025 i.e. within a period of 10 days on the ground of ill health. There is no embargo that a person elected as President of Gram Panchayat should not submit his resignation. If the Gram Panchayat is now operating without a President, the respondent No.4 was well justified in issuing the impugned notification for electing a President. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not justiciable at the instance of the petitioner as none of his rights are affected. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1