- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8637 WP No. 6000 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6000 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. MANINI V M W/O. SRI. K. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NANDI, CHIKKABALLAPURA, KARNATAKA-562 103. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MONICA PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 4. PRESCRIBED OFFICER Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8637 WP No. 6000 of 2025 AND TASHILDAR GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 5. NANDI GRAM PANCHAYAT CHIKBALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. SMT. NALINI. N. V. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MEMBER NANDI GRAM PANCHAYATH, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. JAYAPRAKASH REDDY.M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NO- CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION DATED 17.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 UNDER AEGIS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ACTING UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993. (ANNEXURE A), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8637 WP No. 6000 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court challenging a Resolution that has been successfully moved against her expressing want of confidence. 2. It is not in dispute that the Assistant Commissioner on receiving Form No.I, issued notice to all the members and had also given fifteen days clear notice of the specially convened meeting. 3. In the meeting that has been convened, a Resolution has been passed, whereby, two-thirds of the members have expressed their no confidence in the petitioner. 4. In my view, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned Resolution that has been passed which calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner however strenuously contended that a motion for no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8637 WP No. 6000 of 2025 confidence can be entertained only if there are allegations against the incumbent Adhyaksha. 6. The Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 [for short, ‘the Rules’] which have been framed do not permit of such an argument to be advanced. 7. In fact, Rule 3(7)1 of the Rules categorically states that in the specially meeting convened to consider the motion of no confidence, the Assistant Commissioner is merely required to read out the motion and without there being any debate, the motion is to be put to vote. 8. This would therefore indicate that the question as to whether there were any allegations against the incumbent Adhyaksha or the Upadhyaksha is an 1 3. Motion of No-confidence :- (1) x x x (7) As soon as the meeting convened under sub-rule (2) commences, the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8637 WP No. 6000 of 2025 irrelevant factor for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion. 9. There is no merit in the petition and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1