- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35795 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. R. SARITHA BAI W/O RAJANAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PRESIDENT, N. DEVARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, R/A NO.132, DEVARAHALLI, CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA -577536 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA -577501. 4. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, N. DEVARAHALLI, CHALLEKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA -577536. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. KENCHEGOWDA H.K., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N., ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 10.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.ELECTION:CR:95/2025-26. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ:¹Dgï:95/2025-26 dated 10.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 convening a meeting of the members of the N.Devarahalli Grama Panchayat on 29.11.2025 to consider a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the President of N. Devarahalli Grama Panchayat (for short, ‘the Panchayat’). She was elected on 08.08.2024. After the petitioner completed 15 months as the President, (10) members of the Panchayat expressed lack of confidence in the petitioner and therefore, submitted an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 application in Form No.1 with the respondent No.3 on 10.11.2025. It appears that the respondent No.3 forwarded the notices to the Panchayat Development Officer for service to all the members and accordingly, it was served on all the members by hand. Respondent No.3 thereafter sent the notices to the petitioner and others through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), which was served on the petitioner on 20.11.2025 proposing to convene a meeting on 29.11.2025. The petitioner contends that the mandatory period of notice is not given and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set at nought. She also contends that the petitioner personally received the notice on 18.11.2025. Hence, there was no clear 15 days notice as contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1994’). She also contended that the respondent No.3 could not have entertained a request from the members to move a motion of no- confidence before the expiry of 15 months’ tenure of the petitioner as the President of the Panchayat. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the motion of no-confidence was moved by the members of the Panchayat after the petitioner completed 15 months’ tenure as the President of the Panchayat. She also contends that the notice of the meeting was served on the petitioner on 10.11.2025 itself and the meeting was convened on 29.11.2025. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner is given 15 days notice of the intended meeting that hence, there is no violation of the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 1994. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also supported the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected as the President of the Panchayat on 08.08.2024. Therefore, the members of the Panchayat could not have moved a motion expressing the lack of confidence in the petitioner until - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 07.11.2025. However, the members moved an application in Form-I on 10.11.2025 and hence, the same was done after the petitioner completed 15 months as the President. In the instant case, the proceedings held by the respondent No.3, which is placed before this Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate, shows that the notice of the meeting is dated 10.11.2025 and the same is personally served not only on the petitioner but also on the other members of the Panchayat. The file discloses that the respondent No.3 has thereafter, issued notices through registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat. It is not known why the respondent No.3 did so. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not denied her signature when she received the notice personally. However, she contends that the notice was served personally on her on 18.11.2025. There is no justification for this as she did not mention the date and hence, it has to be construed that the notice of the meeting was personally served on the petitioner on 10.11.2025. The subsequent notice issued to the petitioner and other members of the Panchayat through registered post with acknowledgement due on 18.11.2025 is of no consequence as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49635 WP No. 35795 of 2025 the purpose of notice is to ensure that the petitioner is informed about the motion of no-confidence moved by the members of the Panchayat. Therefore, on all grounds, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned notice. Hence, the petition fails and same is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25