- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20890 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGESH .P AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O PATLAIAH RESIDING AT NO. 119 DODDABELE COLONY, HARALIKATTE BANGALORE-560 060. …PETITIONER (BY VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBBA REDDY .K.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ MS BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION KANDHAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 3. H. GOLLAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE-560060. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 4. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 51, DODDABELE BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU RAMOHALLI-560 060. 5. SMT. SHASHIKALA .M W/O NAGARAJU .S AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT 22, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE KENGERI HOBLI, DODDABELE, BENGALURU BENGALURU-560 060. 6. SMT. POORNIMA .C W/O SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 74, DODDABELE CHUDENAPURA, BENGALURU-560 060. 7. SRI. PRAKASH .C.R S/O RENUKAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 22, CHENNAVEERAYYANA PALYA KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560 060. 8. SRI. PRAKASH .H S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT 67, H. GOLLAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560 060. 9. SMT. M.C. PUSHPAVATHI W/O MANJUNATH .G AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 25/A, NEAR PRAVEEN BANKERS H. GOLLAHALLI, KENGERI GOLLAHALLI BANGALORE-560 060. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 10. SMT. REKHA W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT 93, KATANAYAKANAPURA BENGALURU SOUTH, KENGERI POST BENGALURU-560 060. 11. SRI. UMASHANKAR S/O HONNAGANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 211, 1ST MAIN NEAR MINI WATER TANK H. GOLLAHALLI, VEEDYAPITA POST KENGERI, BENGALURU-560 060. 12. SMT. B.N. BHAGYAMMA W/O MARAPPA .K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 57, NAGEGOWDANAPALYA THALAGHATTAPURA BANGALORE-560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04.07.2025 BEARING NO. SANKHYE. CHUNAVANE/CR.20/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is by the Adyaksha of respondent No.3/Grama Panchayat, who was subjected to no confidence motion by the members. Petitioner is assailing the notice issued by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyakshya and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules 1994 (for short "Rules, 1994) on the premise that the date of no confidence motion scheduled on 21.07.2025 clearly contravenes the period stipulated under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants/members, who moved the no confidence motion by submitting a requisition to respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner acknowledges that the scheduled meeting clearly exceeds the period of 30 days provided under the above said Rule. He would insist this Court to impose an exemplary costs on respondent No.2/Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 Commissioner for having violated the mandate provided under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994. 3. Upon perusal of the records, this Court is constrained to observe that although the Assistant Commissioner received a requisition dated 13.06.2025 signed by a majority of the elected members of the Grama Panchayat expressing their lack of confidence in the Adhyaksha, the statutory mandate under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence) Rules, 1994, has not been complied with in its true letter and spirit. Despite the clear stipulation that a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion must be convened within a specific time frame, it is rather regrettable that the meeting was scheduled only on 21.07.2025, which falls well beyond the outer limit prescribed under the Rules. 4. Admittedly, the total strength of the Grama Panchayat is 14, and out of these, 9 members constituting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 a clear and undisputed majority submitted the requisition to initiate the process for moving a motion of no- confidence against the Adhyaksha. The explanation offered by the learned Additional Government Advocate, that the Assistant Commissioner delayed convening the meeting on the ground that one of the signatures was allegedly forged and required verification, is wholly untenable and without merit. The statute does not confer any discretionary power upon the Assistant Commissioner to embark upon a roving enquiry into the authenticity of the signatures once a facially valid requisition bearing the majority of signatures is placed before him. Even assuming without conceding that one signature was in doubt, there remained 8 other uncontroverted signatures which still formed the required majority. 5. The conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in delaying the meeting and rendering the motion infructuous is not only in violation of the mandate of Rule 3(2) but also amounts to frustrating the democratic expression of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 the will of the elected members. The inaction and procedural deviation displayed by the Assistant Commissioner is in the teeth of several authoritative pronouncements of this Court, which have time and again reiterated that the authorities discharging functions under the Panchayat Raj Act are duty-bound to act within the statutory framework and timelines, especially in matters concerning democratic accountability of office bearers of Gram Panchayat. 6. This Court has consistently deprecated such lapses and held that any dereliction in adhering to the procedure prescribed for processing a no-confidence motion undermines the very ethos of grassroot democracy. Therefore, the conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in the present case deserves to be strongly deprecated and cannot be countenanced. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 7. Be that as it may, the impugned notice fixing the date of no confidence motion on 21.07.2025 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice dated 4.7.2025 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-"A" is hereby quashed. (iii) In the event a fresh requisition is submitted by the members of respondent No.3/Grama Panchayat, it is imperative that respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner discharges his statutory duties with utmost objectivity and vigilance. The Assistant Commissioner shall ensure that no interference, manipulation, or foul play by any vested interest is permitted to derail the statutory process. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26534 WP No. 20890 of 2025 (iv) He shall strictly comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, and take all necessary steps to convene and conduct the meeting within the stipulated time. (v) It is further made clear that any future requisition shall be dealt with expeditiously and in accordance with law, without permitting any delay or procedural impropriety. (vi) Appropriate orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with the mandate of the Rules. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25