- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105151 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. DHAYAMAPPA JANGANNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADHYAKSHA OF JAKKALI GRAM PANCHAYAT, JAKKALI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, PIN – 582 111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. M. SHEELAVANT, SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, SRI. ROHIT L. SHEELVANT & SRI. M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, SUB - DIVISION, GADAG, PIN – 582 101. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, GADAG, PIN – 582 101. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT RON, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, PIN: 582 101. 5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JAKKALI GRAM PANCHAYAT, R Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 JAKKALI, TQ: JAKKALI, DIST: GADAG, PIN – 582 101. 6. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT JAKKALI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, PIN – 582 101. 7. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. MUTAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 8. KADADI BIBIJAN TEEPUSAB, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 9. SMT. NIRMALAVVA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA ADI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 10. BASAVRAJ M. SHYASHATTI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 11. SANTOSH M. KORI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 12. GURAPPA S/O. KALKAPPA RONAD, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 13. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. BASAVARJ MUGALI, AGE: 41 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 14. PALLED RAMESH S/O. ANDANAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 15. MUGALI SHIVRAJ S/O. SHARANAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 16. SMT. ANASUYA MAHESH JANGANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 17. VEERAPPA VIRUPAKSHA VALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. 18. SMT. GANGAVVA DHYAMAPPA JANGANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: JAKKALI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG – 582 119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 TO R15; NOTICE TO R16 TO R18 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 29.07.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 14/7/2025 BEARING NO. ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the notice dated 14/7/2025 bearing No. issued by Respondent No.2 produced at Annexure - G in the interest of justice and equity. B. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The petitioner was elected to the Jakkali Gram Panchayat and thereafter, having contested for the post of Adhyaksha, was elected to the said post on 26/07/2023. 2.2. On 06/11/2024, notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner informing the petitioner that a meeting would be held on 29/11/2024 for considering the no- confidence motion against the petitioner. On - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 29/11/2024, there being no quorum, the meeting was cancelled. 2.3. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner issued another notice on 06/06/2025 informing the petitioner that the meeting to consider the no- confidence motion against the petitioner was fixed on 02/07/2025 on the basis of a new requisition by the members submitted on 06/06/2025. The same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.104196/2025, wherein by order dated 01/07/2025, this Court stayed the meeting proposed to be held. 2.4. In that view of the matter, the meeting could not be held on the date fixed, i.e., on 02/07/2025 and this Court, considering that the notice had lapsed, disposed of Writ Petition No.104196/2025 by reserving liberty on the ground that the petition had been rendered infructuous. 2.5. Subsequent thereto, another notice came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 14/07/2025, fixing the date of the meeting on 31/07/2025, enclosing the earlier requisition which had been submitted on 06/06/2025. It is challenging this notice that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1. The Assistant Commissioner could not have enclosed the earlier requisition dated 06/06/2025. The requisition dated 06/06/2025 had lapsed with the earlier notice dated 06/06/2025, fixing the date of meeting as 02/07/2025, which meeting was not held and as such, he submits that a fresh requisition ought to have been submitted by the members, i.e., respondent Nos.7 to 15 and it is only upon a fresh requisition being submitted that a notice could have been issued under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (‘the Rules of 1994’, for short). 3.2. Further, the meeting is required to be held within 30 days of the requisition having been submitted in terms of Sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. The meeting now proposed to be held on 30/07/2025, with the requisition having been submitted on 06/06/2025, is beyond the period of 30 days and therefore comes within the mischief of the Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. 4. Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 15, would submit that it is only on account of the order of stay dated 01/07/2025 passed in WP No.104196/2025 that the meeting could not be held during the pendency of the said writ petition. The date fixed for the meeting having been expired, it was always open for the Assistant Commissioner to issue a fresh notice fixing a fresh date of meeting. That requisition continuing to hold, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 there is no requirement for any further requisitions to be submitted. 5. Heard Sri.M. L. Vanti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 15. Perused the records. 6. The points that would arise for determination of this Court are: i. Whether, on a requisition for no-confidence having been submitted, if the meeting is not held on the date so fixed on account of interim orders passed by the Court, could a fresh notice be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the same requisition? ii. Whether, in the event of a meeting fixed for considering the no-confidence motion not being held on the date so fixed on account of an order of stay granted by the Court, on the said order having been vacated and any challenge to the same being dismissed, could a meeting be held by issuing a fresh notice even after lapse of 30 days from the requisition? iii. What order? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 7. Answer to Point No.1: Whether, on a requisition for no-confidence having been submitted, if the meeting is not held on the date so fixed on account of interim orders passed by the Court, could a fresh notice be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the same requisition? 7.1. The facts are not in dispute inasmuch as the requisition was submitted on 06/06/2025, the Assistant Commissioner has initially issued a notice on 06/06/2025 fixing the date of the meeting as 02/07/2025. The petitioner, having waited till the last, approached this Court on 01/07/2025 in WP No.104196/2025, wherein this Court granted an order of stay. Subsequently, on account of the date for the meeting having lapsed, the writ petition has been dismissed as having become infructuous. 7.2. What is required to be ascertained now is as regards the validity, and effect of the requisition which had been submitted on 06/06/2025. Would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 the validity of the requisition lapse merely on account of the meeting not being held? 7.3. It is also clear that this Court did not decide WP No.104196/2025 on merits, but the said writ petition had been dismissed as infructuous, there being no finding given on the merits of the matter and/or contention of the parties. The said writ petition having been dismissed as infructuous, what did occur was only that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 02/07/2025 was not so held. The requisition continued to hold inasmuch as the requisition had not been set aside, quashed or the like by this Court while dealing with WP No.104196/2025. 7.4. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the requisition continues to hold. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the matter on 09/07/2025 as infructuous, has also reserved liberty to the petitioner the right to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 approach this Court if aggrieved, which would necessarily mean that the petitioner could be aggrieved only if the Assistant Commissioner had issued a fresh notice on the said requisition. 7.5. Thus, the requisition not having lapsed, the time for holding the meeting stood postponed during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. The writ petition having been filed on 01/07/2025 and disposed of on 09/07/2025, that time period cannot be taken into consideration. The requisition continuing to hold, the Assistant Commissioner has issued notice on 14/07/2025 fixing the date of the meeting as 30/07/2025, which has now been challenged by the petitioner by filing the petition on 24/07/2025. 7.6. In view of the above, I answer to Point No. 1 by holding that on a requisition for no-confidence having been submitted, if the meeting is not held on the date so fixed on account of interim orders - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 passed by the Court, a fresh notice can be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the same requisition. 8. Answer to Point No.2: Whether, in the event of a meeting fixed for considering the no- confidence motion not being held on the date so fixed on account of an order of stay granted by the Court, on the said order having been vacated and any challenge to the same being dismissed, could a meeting be held by issuing a fresh notice even after lapse of 30 days from the requisition? 8.1. The contention in this regard is that the requisition having been submitted on 06/06/2025 and the meeting now proposed to be held on 30/07/2025 is beyond the period of 30 days fixed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. The said sub-rule is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: Rule 3(2): The Assistant Commissioner shall convene a meeting for consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rul(1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. 8.2. A perusal of the above Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner is required to convene a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat on the date appointed by him, which shall not be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. It further clarifies that the Assistant Commissioner shall give to the members, including the person against whom the no-confidence motion is moved, a notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form II. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 8.3. The provisio provides for a situation where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. 8.4. The above can be looked at from two different angles: 8.4.1. The first angle being as regards the pendency of the writ petition and the stay order granted in the said writ petition due to which the meeting could not be held, and as held by me in answer to Point No.1, the requisition continuing to hold, the Assistant Commissioner could issue a notice - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 fixing a date of the meeting. If that were to be so, if the time taken before the Court were to be more than 30 days, then the said lapse of time cannot, therefore, come in the way of the Assistant Commissioner issuing a notice on the very same requisition on account of the alleged embargo under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994. 8.4.2. In such a situation the provisio would apply the provisio providing for such a situation, the Assistant Commissioner being required to hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 8.4.3. In the present matter, the interim order had been passed on 02/07/2025, the writ petition was disposed of on 09/07/2025 within 7 days, thereby the stay also came to be vacated. The Assistant Commissioner has issued notice on 14/07/2025 fixing the date of meeting as 30/07/2025. 8.4.4. Looked at from another angle, the period of 30 days which has been fixed under Sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994, is to protect the interest of the persons moving the no-confidence motion to ensure that their requisition/requisition for no- confidence is acted upon in a time-bound manner within a period of 30 days. 8.4.5. Thus, the grievance, if any, in respect of no action being taken within 30 days could only be raised by the requisitioners and not - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 by the person against whom the requisition has been moved. 8.4.6. On enquiry, Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel for respondents Nos.7 to 15, submits that respondent Nos.7 to 15 have no grievance regarding the meeting being conducted on 30/07/2025. 8.5. Thus, looked at from both the angles as enumerated above, I am of the considered opinion that the holding of the meeting on 30/07/2025, even though 30 days have lapsed from the date of the requisition, will not come in the way of holding the meeting within 30 days of the stay having been vacated, which was so vacated on 09/07/2025 and the proposed meeting is not to be held on 30/07/2025, after issuing 15 clear days notice. 8.6. Hence, I answer point No.2 holding that, in the event of a meeting fixed for considering the no- - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9344 WP No. 105151 of 2025 confidence motion not being held on the date so fixed on account of an order of stay granted by the Court, on the said order having been vacated and any challenge to the same being dismissed, a meeting can be held by issuing a fresh notice even after lapse of 30 days from the requisition, within 30 days of the stay being vacated by issuing a notice of 15 clear days. 9. Answer Point No.3: What order? 9.1. In view of my answers to Point Nos.1 and 2, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13