- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100251 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMAGOUDA S/O PARANAGOUDA POLCE PATIL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 2. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O BASAVARAJ TALAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 3. SMT. NIMBAKSHI W/O SHIVAPPA CHALAVADI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 4. SMT. RATNA W/O HANUMAPPA HULLANNAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O SANGANGOUDA SHEELAVANTAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 6. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O BASAPPA HULLURU, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 7. RAVI S/O BHEEMAPPA BAGEWADI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 8. SMT. CHAITRA W/O RAMAPPA TURUMURI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, SRI. SRINAND PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583231. 2. GRAM PANCHAYAT ANTARATANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PDO, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL, 3. SMT. MASAVVA W/O MUTTANNA WALIKAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 4. BORAPPA S/O SANGAPPA WAJJAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI DIST: KOPPAL-583281. 5. MAHANTESH S/O SANGAPPA TAMMANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, R/O: ANTARATANA, TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583281. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BALIGERIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS, SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26/04/2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.102768/2025 GRANTED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 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 S G PANDIT) This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the interim order dated 26.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.102768/2025 staying the notice of ‘no confidence’ motion dated 16.04.2025 and posting the matter after Summer Vacation 2025. 2. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri. Srinand Pachhapure and Sri. Shivanand Malashetti, appearing for the appellants, Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Vijaykumar Baligerimath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and Sri. B.C.Jnanayyaswamy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 4. The petitioner approached this Court questioning the notice of ‘no confidence’ motion, dated 16.04.2025 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 (Annexure-E), on two grounds i.e., the notice was not preceded by 15 days clear notice and that the notice was issued to remove the petitioner and it was not a notice of ‘no confidence’ motion. The petitioner had sought for an interim prayer of stay of the said notice dated 16.04.2025 issued by respondent No.1 convening meeting of ‘no confidence’ motion to be held on 03.05.2025 at 11.45 a.m. at the office of the Grama Panchayat. The appellants/respondents No.3 and 6 to 12 were on caveat. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 26.04.2025, the learned Single Judge stayed the notice of ‘no confidence’ motion dated 16.04.2025. 5. Sri. Srinand Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is an unreasoned order and no reasons are assigned for staying the notice of ‘no confidence’ motion dated 16.04.2025. It is his submission that both the grounds on which the writ petition is filed would not stand to legal reason. Further, he submits that the notice of ‘no confidence’ is dated 16.04.2025 fixing the meeting on 03.05.2025, whereas the said notice is served on the petitioner on 17.04.2025, and if the date of service is taken, there is clear - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 15 days notice, as provided under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, for short). Further, learned counsel, referring to Form No.I prescribed under the Rules, would submit that the word used in terms of Form No.I, the appellant/respondent No.3 has submitted motion of ‘no confidence’. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ appeal and to set aside the interim order dated 26.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.102768/2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. B.C. Jnanayyaswamy, appearing for respondent No.3/petitioner supports the order of the learned Single Judge. Further, it is his specific contention that the word used in the motion of no confidence is removal of the petitioner which cannot be under Rule 3 of the Rules. He submits that, if the appellants’ intention is to remove the petitioner-Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat, they ought to have invoked Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) and not Rule 3 of the Rules. Further, he submits that there is no material whatsoever to exercise power under Section 49 of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 the 1993 Act, and as such, the learned Single Judge is justified in granting interim order as prayed for by the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ appeal 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for consideration is, Whether the impugned interim order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference at the hands of this Court? 8. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons: (a) Annexure-E, notice of ‘no confidence’ motion dated 16.04.2025 issued under Rule 3(2) of the Rules is the subject matter of the writ petition. The said notice is questioned on two grounds viz., that the notice is not in compliance with Rule 3 of the Rules, in that there is no clear 15 days notice, and that the notice of ‘no confidence’ dated 16.04.2025 is for removal of the petitioner and it is not a notice of ‘no confidence’. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 (b) Rule 3 of the Rules require the Assistant Commissioner to give clear 15 days’ notice of ‘no confidence’. In the instant case, the notice is dated 16.04.2025 and the same was served on the petitioner on 17.04.2025. The said notice of ‘no confidence’ is issued fixing the meeting on 03.05.2025 at 11.45 a.m. Thus, there is 15 days’ clear notice and it cannot be said that there is no 15 days’ clear notice. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it stands rejected. (c) The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the word used in the ‘no confidence’ motion is removal of the petitioner. A perusal of Form No.I uses the word ‘removal’ and the subject of notice makes it abundantly clear that a notice of ‘no confidence’ motion is issued. The motion of no confidence submitted is in Form No.I. When the motion of no confidence is in conformity with Form No.I, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the motion of no confidence is for removal which would attract Section 49 of the 1993 Act. The motion of no confidence dated 16.04.2025 and removal of the petitioner is on no confidence and not on any allegation or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7027-DB WA No. 100251 of 2025 misconduct. Thus, both the grounds urged by the petitioner are not available to the petitioner. 9. In the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge fell into error in granting the interim order of stay of Annexure-E, the notice of ‘no confidence’ motion dated 16.04.2025. 10. For the reasons recorded above, we pass the following: i) Writ appeal is allowed. ii) The interim order dated 26.04.2025 passed in W.P. No.102768/2025 is set aside. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9