- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 21914 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PUSHPA V PRAVEEN NAIK W/O PRAVEEN NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.131 MALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HOSADURGA TALUK - 577554. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANATKUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL BODIES AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA – 577501 3. GRAMA PANCHAYATH 08 MALLAPPANAHALLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577554 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA) Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 10.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2/AC, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the President of Mallappanahalli Gram Panchayat, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, assailing the legality and validity of the notice dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPR Rules, 1994'). By the said notice, a meeting has been convened for consideration of a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, scheduled to be held on 30.07.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 2. The present writ petition challenges the notice issued by the 2nd respondent–Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the KPR Rules, 1994, on multiple grounds. The first ground of challenge pertains to the maintainability of the no-confidence motion itself. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that she was elected as the President of the Grama Panchayat on 10.08.2023 and, therefore, any motion of no confidence ought to conform to the time limitation as it stood prior to the amendment brought by Act 49 of 2020. According to the petitioner, in terms of the erstwhile second proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993"), a no- confidence motion could not be initiated until completion of 30 months from the date of election. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that the attempt to initiate the no- confidence motion prior to expiry of 30 months is legally untenable. 3. The second ground urged by the petitioner is procedural. It is contended that the Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 Commissioner has not adhered to the statutory mandate of issuing notice within a period of ten days upon receipt of a valid requisition under Rule 3(1) of the KPR Rules, 1994. The petitioner submits that the notice dated 10.07.2025 issued under Rule 3(2) is vitiated as it was not issued in strict compliance with the time-bound procedural framework prescribed under the Rules. 4. The third ground raised is that the impugned notice under Rule 3(2) is not accompanied by a copy of the requisition allegedly submitted by the elected members of the Grama Panchayat seeking initiation of a motion of no confidence. The petitioner contends that non-furnishing of the requisition vitiates the entire process as it deprives the petitioner of an opportunity to ascertain the legitimacy of the requisition and the identities and intent of the members purportedly supporting the motion. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents. I have also carefully perused the material placed on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 6. With regard to the first contention, the same does not merit acceptance. The petitioner’s argument that a motion of no confidence cannot be initiated within a period of 30 months from the date of election is misplaced in the light of the amendment brought to Section 49 of the Act, 1993, by way of Karnataka Act No.49 of 2020. Post- amendment, the statutory threshold for initiating a no- confidence motion stands reduced to 15 months. Therefore, any reliance on the unamended provision prescribing 30 months is legally unsustainable. The amended provision is clearly applicable to the present facts, and the petitioner having completed more than 15 months in office is no longer insulated from a motion of no confidence. 7. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, namely that the Assistant Commissioner has not complied with the 10-day requirement for issuing notice under Rule 3(2), the said contention is also without merit. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chetana A. Channabasappa vs. The State of Karnataka and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 Others in W.P.No.100364/2025, decided on 21.01.2025, has categorically held that the 10-day time frame contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the KPR Rules, 1994, is a directive for the Assistant Commissioner to act upon the requisition and issue a notice, and that it is not intended to confer any right on the elected representative to challenge the notice solely on account of a marginal delay in processing the requisition. The co-ordinate Bench further clarified that the outer time limit is intended to ensure administrative promptness and cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to invalidate the entire process if there is substantial compliance. 8. The third contention regarding non-enclosure of the requisition with the notice under Rule 3(2) is also devoid of merit. It is well-settled that the requirement of annexing the requisition with the notice is not a mandatory obligation under the KPR Rules, 1994. The Rules merely require the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice upon satisfaction that a valid requisition under Rule 3(1) has been received. In the light of the judgment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025 in Chetana A. Channabasappa (supra), it is now settled law that non-enclosure of the requisition does not render the notice under Rule 3(2) illegal or void, particularly when the process is initiated in substantial compliance with the Rules. 9. In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the legal position enunciated by this Court in Chetana A. Channabasappa (supra), none of the contentions urged by the petitioner merit acceptance. The challenge to the impugned notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the KPR Rules, 1994, is unsustainable either on facts or in law. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12