- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104557 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: RAMESH SHIVAPPA JAMKHANDI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, PATTAN PANCHAYAT KAMATAGI, R/O. KAMATAGI TOWN, DIST: BAGALKOT-587120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRINIVAS NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PATTAN PANCHAYAT KAMATAGI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER 2. BASAVARAJ PUNDALIKAPPA KUMBALAVATI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 3. SANGAPPA HUCHAPPA GANIGER AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 4. HUCHHESHA MALLAPPA MADLI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 5. RATNA MAHANTESH TALAGERI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 6. NETRAVATI DEVIPRASAD NIMBALGUNDI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.19 12:48:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 7. HUCHHEVVA BASAPPA HAGEDAL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 8. LAKSHMAN AYYAPPA MADAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 9. DEVIPRASAD RAMAPPA NIMBALAGUNDI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 10. NANDA LAKSHMAN DYAMANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 11. SUMITRA RAMESH LAMANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 12. KASTURIBAI NAGAPPA BAGEWADI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 13. CHANDAPPA NINGAPPA KURI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, 14. MUNJULA NAGESH MURAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: COUNCILOR, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 14 R/O. KAMATAGI TOWN, BAGALKOTE-587120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2-R14; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH) 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 TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 07.07.2025 BEARING NO.KRA.PAPANKA/AA.VI/VI.SA.SA/2025-26/37 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) Notice to respondent No.1 is dismissed as no adverse is passed against respondent No.1. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil on behalf of the learned counsel Sri. Srinivas Naik for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli for respondent Nos.2 to 14. 2. The petitioner claims to be the elected Councilor of the 1st respondent Pattan Panchayat from Ward No.6 and elected as councilor in the elections held on 27.12.2021. The respondent Nos.2 to 13 are also elected from different wards as Councillors. The petitioner was elected as the President of 1st respondent Pattan Panchayat and he conducted many activities, consolidated funds for the development activities. This being the state of affairs, respondent Nos.2 to 13 moved a letter on 20.06.2025 addressing it to the President and the Chief Officer of the 1st respondent requesting the Chief Officer to fix a special general body meeting to move the no-confidence - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 motion against the petitioner. Same letter was also sent to the petitioner through registered post. 3. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received proper request letter from the respondents as required under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and did not act on the informal request made by the respondents. It is further contended that respondent Nos.2 to 13 submitted a request letter on 05.07.2025 to the Vice President of the 1st respondent to fix the meeting to pass no-confidence motion against the petitioner and the meeting was scheduled on 18.07.2025 to decide the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, as same being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, a copy of the letter submitted on 20.06.2025 and the letter dated 05.07.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 are taken into consideration, no allegations whatsoever are levelled against the petitioner to move no-confidence motion and no-confidence motion can be moved only on the circumstances of serious allegations against the President and the Vice President and even going by the letters dated 20.06.2025 and 05.07.2025, they do not meet the requirement of the provisions of Section 42(9) of the Act and Section 47 of the Act. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned senior counsel that as per sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act, there is clear 10 days requirement to fix the meeting on the intention of the petitioners to call for a no-confidence motion against the President. These 10 days means, a clear gap of 10 days between the issuance of the notice, service of notice on all the councilors and holding of meeting. It is contended further that, though the notice is issued on 07.07.2025, it is not served on all the councilors and the proposed meeting is scheduled to be held on 18.07.2025. Therefore, the clear 10 days period which is contemplated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 under Section 42(9) of the Act has been violated. Respondent Nos.2 to 13 moved a letter on 20.06.2025 addressing to the President and submitted it to the Chief Officer of the 1st respondent requesting the Chief Officer to fix a special general body meeting to move no-confidence motion and it is also submitted that this notice cannot be given or submitted to the Chief Officer. A request has to be submitted to the President to fix the meeting. Under the circumstances, compliance of Section 47 of the Act is violated as the same is not complied. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Section 42(9) of the Act and the proviso therein contained. The 1st respondent being a statutory authority and respondent Nos.2 to 13 being the elected councilors are required to act in the most fair and reasonable manner by complying with the requirement under the Act and there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement and the provisions have been violated, it will nullify the notice of request for scheduling the meeting for no-confidence against the petitioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 6. Under the circumstances and aggrieved by the notice to the Vice President as contemplated under Section 47(3) of the Act scheduling the meeting on 18.07.2025 is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj Ballolli appearing for the respondents vehemently contends that there is no illegality or violation in following the provision of the Act, most specifically Section 42(9) and 47 of the Act. Learned counsel further contends that the notice has been issued on 20.06.2025 vide Annexure-C. This has been issued to the President by the required number of councilors signing the letter/intimation with a clear intention to call for a general body meeting as they have expressed their no- confidence against the petitioner-President of the Pattan Panchayat. He contends that since issuance of notice on 20.06.2025, 15 days time is provided to the President to call for a special general body meeting as contemplated under Section 47(2) of the Act and not more than 15 days to call for a special general body meeting. This having not been - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 complied by the President after service of notice by the councilors, they were left with no other alternative but to follow the provisions under Section 47(3) of the Act wherein the President fails to call for a special general body meeting, the Vice President or 1/3rd of the total members may call such meeting for a day not more than 30 days from the date of presentation of the such request and required the Chief Office of the Municipal Commissioner to give notice to the Councillors to take action to convene the meeting. Therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of the Section 47 of the Act has been invoked by the respondents in view of the absence of action taken by the President under sub- section (2) of Section 47 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Devika Siddalingagowda and Others v. The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkur district and Others1 in support of his case wherein in identical circumstances, the provision of 1 ILR 2013 KAR 1324 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 Section 42 and Provisions of Section 47 were dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court and decided the matter and procedure to be followed in case of the no-confidence expressed by the councilors against the President of the Pattan Panchayat. 9. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Apparently, it is seen that the respondents have given a notice expressing no-confidence against the petitioner-President on 20.06.2025 at 11:40 am and the receipt by the petitioner/President from the members/councilors is not in dispute. Once the notice is given by the members with regard to expressing no confidence against the President, it becomes mandatory for the President to follow the provisions under Section 47(2) of the Act to act immediately and call for a special general body meeting not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of such request. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not done so forcing the respondents to initiate action - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 under sub-section (3) of section 47 of the Act by going to the Vice President for calling a special general body meeting to initiate no-confidence motion against the President. The provisions of Section 47 is extracted herein for better understanding. 47. Meeting.—(1) The municipal council shall ordinarily hold at least one meeting in every month for the transaction of business, [which shall be called an ordinary general meeting.] (2) The president may, whenever he thinks fit, and shall, upon the written request of not less than one-third of the whole number of councillors and for a date not more than fifteen days after the presentation of such request, call a special general meeting. (3) If the president fails to call a special general meeting as provided in sub-section (2), the vice-president or one-third of the whole number of councillors may call such meeting for a day not more than thirty days after the presentation of such request and require the chief officer or the municipal commissioner to give notice to the councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting. “42. President and vice-president- (1) to (8)xxx (9) Every president and every vice-president of a municipal council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a [majority of the total number of councillors having voting right and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the councillors - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 having voting right present and voting] at a special general meeting convened for the purpose: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the [total number of councillors having voting right] and at least ten days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: Provided further that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any president or vice-president has been considered and negatived by a municipal council, a similar resolution in respect of the same president or vice- president shall not be given notice of or moved within one year from the date of the decision of the municipal council.” 11. The Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Devika Siddalingagowda’s case (supra) has squarely considered the subject issue involved herein in favour of the respondents at para 9 which reads as under: “9. In this back ground when we look at Section 47, this provision confers power on the President, Vice-President or ⅓rd of the whole number of Councillors to call a special general meeting. The requirement of law as stipulated in Section 47(2) is that, if a request is made by not less than one-third of the whole number of Councillors who have voting right, the President shall call a special general meeting. In other words, such a request cannot be made to any other person other than the President. The request has to be made to the President, so that he will come to know the intention behind such request and convene such special general meeting. It is nothing but a communication of the intention on the part of the members of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 Council to their leader-the President. Such a request has to be necessarily in writing by not less than one-third of the whole members of the Council. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The presentation of the request to the President does not mean that such request has to be made to the President personally. The Legislature has consciously not used the word “personally”. The reason is not far to seek. If one third of the Council Members want to move a no confidence motion against the President himself and the requirement is, it is to be presented to him personally, the President may avoid to receive such request personally and thus frustrate a valuable right of the members. Therefore such a requirement is not prescribed. The absence of the word “personally” is conspicuously absent in the said provision. The intention of the Legislature is clear. In fact the language employed in this provision does not indicate that such a written request is to be presented to the President personally. The Legislature in its wisdom has cautiously avoided the word “personally” while enacting the Law/Act. Therefore, the presentation of the written request, though to be addressed to the President, need not be presented to the President personally. It is not the requirement of law. On the contrary, such request has to be made to the President and presented to him, may be either personally or by sending it by post or by handing over such request in his office. When once such request is presented, then Section 47(2) comes into operation and casts an obligation on the President to convene a special general meeting. Any other interpretation would make Section 47(2) redundant.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 12. Therefore by taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, this matter can be decided in the following manner. 13. The notice was issued to the President on 20.06.2025. The period of 15 days comes to an end on 05.07.2025. As the President has not acted within 15 days time period provided under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act, provisions of Section 47(3) is invoked by the respondents to call for a special general body meeting to initiate the no-confidence motion against the petitioner- President. If the petitioner had acted in accordance to Section 47(2) of the Act, there was no requirement for the respondents to proceed under the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Act. Therefore, the inaction of the petitioner to Act in accordance with Section 47(2) of the Act has perforced the respondents to invoke the provisions of Section 47(3) of the Act. Therefore, the notice of request was got issued by the respondents on 07.07.2025 pursuant to the inaction of the petitioner-President in not complying with the provision - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 of Section 47(2) of the Act. Therefore, the respondents initiating the process of request to move a no-confidence motion addressing to the Vice President who has in turn referred it to the Chief Office to take action in accordance with law cannot be found fault with. It is to be noted that once the respondents/councillors express their intention of no-confidence against the petitioner and had given the letter of notice served to the petitioner, it becomes mandatory for the petitioner-President to call for a special general body meeting not later than 15 days from the date of such request and if he does not do so, sub-section(3) of Section 47 of the Act contemplates the action to be taken by the councilors who have no-confidence against the President to move it to the Vice President, who in turn shall refer it or require the chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner to give notice the councilors to take action as may be necessary to convene the meeting to initiate the process of no-confidence against the President. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 14. The contention of the learned senior counsel with regard to the provisions of Section 42(9) of the Act that the respondents ought to have given a notice of at least 10 days before moving the resolution and thereafter provide another 15 days for the President to call for a special general body meeting, in my humble opinion may not be the correct procedure for the reason that, if that was the case, then Section 47(2) would have mentioned so explicitly in the language clearly to be stated by the Legislature. Therefore, this Court cannot imply to invoke something what is not available in the provision of Section 47(2) which does not say whether an additional 10 days time ought to have been given as contemplated under Section 42(9) of the Act. Therefore, once the no-confidence request is made by the councilors against the President, the petitioner-President ought to follow the provisions contemplated under Section 47 by calling a special general body meeting not more than 15 days and go through with the motion of no-confidence. If he is confident, he will succeed, if there is support and if there is no such support, he would automatically fail. I do not find - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8823 WP No. 104557 of 2025 any illegality, arbitrariness or cogent reasons to interfere with the procedure adopted by the respondents in initiating the process of notice for calling the no-confidence against the petitioner-President. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following order: This petition is dismissed. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Kmv CT-MCK