- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31326 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. JAYAMMA W/O RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ADHYAKSHINI, CHELURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHELURU, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-573201. 2. GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHELURU, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572117. REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER 3. YATHEESHA C.N S/O NATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 4. SMT. YASHODA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 5. SIDDARAJU. C.M S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 6. SMT. PADMA .C.C W/O LATE KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 7. SMT. MALA S.R W/O ANAND, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 8. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 9. SATEESH.M.K S/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 10. SHIVAKUMAR S/O HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 11. SMT. SUJATHA RAVIKUMAR W/O RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHELURU, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 117. 12. DHANANJAYA M.D S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 13. BASAVARAJ H.U. S/O UGRAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 14. SMT. SUJATHA K.S. W/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 15. SMT. CHANDRAMMA K.L. W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 16. RANGASWAMY K.G. S/O GARUDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 16 ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIYALA, CHELULR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117 17. SMT. JAYAMMA M.S. W/O RAGHU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 18. VIJAYAKUMAR C.M. S/O MYLARPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 19. SHIVARAJU C.B. S/O BORANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESPONDENTS NO.17 TO 19 ARE RESIDENTS OF BANGENAHALLI, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117. 20. DAYANANDA .S.D. S/O DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH 21. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O VAJRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHYATH, RESPONDENTS NO.20 AND 21 ARE RESIDENTS OF SOOLAYYANAPALYA, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117. 22. SMT NALINA M.K. W/O MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDENT OF MOOGUHUNUSE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117. 23. RAJANNA S/O THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER, CHELUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDENT OF KACHHENAHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 BEARING NO. ELN (GU) CR:36/2025-26 DATED 26.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the notice bearing No.ಇಎಎ(ಗು)ಆ :36/25-26 dated 26.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 proposing to hold a meeting of the members of the respondent No.2 for considering a motion of no- confidence on 24.10.2025. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as the President of the respondent No.2 on 09.07.2024. Respondent Nos.3 to 23 submitted a request in Form I with the respondent No.1 and requested him to convene a meeting of the members to consider a motion of no- confidence. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner and other members and fixed the meeting on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 24.10.2025. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice, is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act, 1993'), a motion of no- confidence cannot be moved against the petitioner before she completes fifteen months as the President of the respondent No.2. He also contended that under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules, 1994'), apart from the notice in Form I signed by not less than specified in Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993 of the total number of members, the members have to furnish a copy of the proposed motion to the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.1. He contends that in the instant case, the members of the respondent No.2 have only submitted a request in Form I and have not furnished a copy of the proposed motion. He, therefore, submits that when the law mandates that a thing has to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone or not at all. He, therefore, submits that the notice in Form I is incomplete and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 hence, respondent No.1 could not have acted upon Form I and could not have issued a notice to convene a meeting of the members to consider a motion of no-confidence. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that Section 49 of the Act, 1993 is a substantive provision which relates to the motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. He contends that Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993 deals with the manner of passage of a motion of no-confidence and the first proviso to Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993 mandates that such resolution shall not be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. He, therefore, contends that the requirement in Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 that the members have to furnish a notice in Form I along with a copy of the proposed motion, is not contemplated under Section 49 of the Act, 1993 but what is contemplated is only a notice in Form I and nothing more. He invited the attention of this Court to Form I and submitted that Form I is not only a notice but also contains a proposed motion. He, therefore, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 submits that both the requirements as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 are complied with and hence, no interference is warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopted the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. In order to address the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is first appropriate to refer to Section 49 of the Act, 1993, which reads as follows: "49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.- (1) Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within the first fifteen months from the date of his election: Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, six months from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat." 7. The second proviso to Section 49 of the Act, 1993 speaks that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within the first fifteen months from the date of his/her election. The petitioner was elected as the President of the respondent No.2 on 09.07.2024 and therefore, she would complete 15 months in office on 09.10.2025. The meeting of the members is scheduled on 24.10.2025 which is beyond the fifteen months from the date of election of the petitioner, prescribed in the second proviso to Section 49 of the Act, 1993. The proviso does not speak of any restraint against moving a motion of no- confidence but only restrains passing a resolution within the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 first fifteen months from the date of election of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not merit consideration. Consequently, that contention is rejected. 8. In so far as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is relevant for the purpose of this writ petition and the same is extracted below: "3. Motion of No-confidence.- (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by not less than specified in Section 49(1) of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person specified under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner." A perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 says that along with the notice in Form I, the members should also furnish a copy of the proposed motion. The procedure for furnishing “a copy of the proposed motion", is not found in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 Section 49 of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the notice in Form I signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of Grama Panchayat would be sufficient. A perusal of Form I itself shows that the members who intimate the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 also indicate the purpose of the notice. For the sake of convenience, Form I is extracted below: "FORM I [See Rule 3(1)] To, The Assistant Commissioner…… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… Sir, Sub: Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of ……………………… Grama Panchayat. We, the following members hereby give notice of our intention to move that sri. …………………………… Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of ……………………… Grama Panchayat shall be removed from the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. Yours faithfully, Signature of members of Grama Panchayat 1. 2. 3. etc." - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41853 WP No. 31326 of 2025 Therefore, the members by filing Form I also, furnished the proposed motion against a Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. Consequently, in the instant case, sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 is complied in letter and spirit and therefore, the intended meeting scheduled on 24.10.2025 cannot be found fault with on the ground that the notice issued by fifteen members of the respondent No.2 is incomplete. Consequently, this contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, also does not merit acceptance. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32