- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100080 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. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, 3RD 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. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 5. SRI. SOMAPPA BASAPPA KALLOLLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER 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:4224-DB WA No.100080 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: BELAGAVI-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 & R2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R16) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05-02-2025 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.100785/2025 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M POONACHA) 1. The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 5.2.2025, passed in WP No. 100785/2025. Vide said order dated 5.2.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which petition was filed, calling in question the notice dated 22.01.2025, issued by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner. 2. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel Sri. H.M. Dharigond for the appellant is that, pursuant to the submission of the requisition for moving No confidence motion in Form-1 under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 19931, which was submitted on 21.1.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice to the appellant/writ petitioner and other members of the Gram Panchayat on 22.01.2025 and fixed the date of meeting on 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1993’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 10.02.2025. That having regard to Section 49(1) of the Act of 1993, the notice ought to have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, ten days after receipt of the Form-1. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath and learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil for respondents No.4 to 16, the said question is no longer res-integra, inasmuch as the same has been answered by a Full-bench of this Court in the case of Shankargouda & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others2. It is relevant to note here that Full-bench of this Court was considering the following question: "Whether the Assistant Commissioner should wait for ten days to expire before taking steps to issue a notice to the members to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence?" 4. While answering the said question in the 'negative', the Full-bench has held as under: “since, the moment the members of a Panchayat submit their intention to move a resolution, the process is set into motion and the Assistant Commissioner may 2 ILR 2022 KAR 3691 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 ascertain the genuinity of the signatures of the members signing the intent to move a resolution, by corresponding with the Panchayat and thereafter, issue a notice to all the members in Form-II, fixing a date for the meeting by giving 15 days clear notice to all the members. He should ensure that the date of meeting shall be within 30 days from the date of the members submitting their intention to move a resolution in Form-1. Since the Assistant Commissioner is bound to preside over the meeting, he has to ensure that the date of such meeting does not clash with any of his other official commitments. Since we have held that the ten days mentioned in First proviso to Section 49 is the breathing time given to the Assistant Commissioner to set the ball in motion, he need not wait for the expiry of that ten days before initiating action. Since the Assistant Commissioner is under a mandate to conclude the process within 30 days, Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994 is designed to provide adequate discretion to the Assistant Commissioner to steer the process, so that it does not spill over the 30 days mandate. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted then, it may at times overspill the 30 days mandate, in which event, the no confidence motion would be rendered Invalid. In that situation, by virtue of the third proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1993, the consequences could be disastrous inasmuch as the members may or may not be exposed to the risk of being disabled to move another motion for no confidence within six months from the date of the meeting that is invalidated.” (Emphasis supplied) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4224-DB WA No.100080 of 2025 5. In view of law declared by the Full-bench of this Court In the case of Shankargouda2, as noticed above, the contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 6. In view of dismissal of the above appeal, the pending applications also stand disposed off. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR, ct:vp LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 12