- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37319 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SMT. PAVITHRA RAVIKUMAR WIFE OF RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESIDING AT KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATHI, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE -562 067 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU -560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009 4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH Digitally signed by SUMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR NO- CONFIDENCE MOTION IN KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KR PURAM, VIDE NO.CR 45/25-26 DATED 01.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 01.12.2025, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, IN NO.CR 45/25-26, DATED 01.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-F), WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HAS CALLED FOR A MEETING TO BE HELD ON 16.12.2025, ON A NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION THAT IS MOVED AGAINST THE PETITIONER, WHICH RUNS CONTRARY TO SECTION 49 OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1993. 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 challenged a notice dated 01.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 convening a meeting of the members of respondent No.4 on 16.12.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 2. The petitioner was elected as a member of respondent No.4 on 30.12.2020 was thereafter elected as its President on 09.08.2023. The petitioner claims that her term would come to an end on 30.12.2025. She claims that she has served respondent No.4 to the best of her ability without any blemish. She further claims that certain disputes arose between herself and the members of respondent No.4 and that 11 members of respondent No.4 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 19.11.2025 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner. 3. The petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.3 disputing the signatures of the members who had submitted their representation dated 19.11.2025. The respondent No.3 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to verify the signatures of the members who filed the representation dated 19.11.2025. The respondent No.4 replied to respondent No.3 on 20.11.2025 enclosing a copy of the meeting dated 09.08.2023 and the attendance register of the members who attended the said meeting. Based on the above, respondent No.3 being satisfied about the genuineness of the signatures of the members on the representation, issued a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 notice dated 01.12.2025 convening a meeting of the members on 16.12.2025 to consider the motion of no confidence. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's term will come to an end on 30.12.2025 and at the fag end of her tenure, the members of respondent No.4 have moved a motion of no confidence. He submits that the petitioner has served respondent No.4 sincerily and has a blemish free record, and that if she is ousted from the office of the President at this stage, it would affect her future prospects. He therefore submits that the impugned notice being issued at the instance of certain inimically ill-disposed members, is liable to be set at nought. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 submit in unison that the petitioner has not alleged any violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1993' for short) or Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994' for short). They therefore contend that the impugned notice is not liable to be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. They further contend that the grounds urged by the petitioner are not available to her under the said Act, 1993 and Rules, 1994. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4. 8. The petitioner contends that some of the signatures of the members who had submitted their representation expressing lack of confidence were forged. However, the Panchayat Development Officer has verified the signatures and has forwarded the extract of meeting on 09.08.2023 as well as the extract of attendance register to demonstrate that the signatures found on the representation correspond with the signatures maintained in the records of respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 being satisfied that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52471 WP No. 37319 of 2025 representation was duly submitted by the members, has accordingly issued a notice fixing the date of the meeting as 16.12.2025. If the members have the right to elect, they also have the right to amotion the elected candidate. The petitioner cannot seek to protect her office by contending that the notice is issued at the fag end of her term. If the petitioner has lost the confidence of the members, a motion of no confidence is permissible under Section 49 of the Act, 1993 the only exception being that it cannot be moved within 15 months from the date she assumed office as President. In the present case, the motion is moved well after the expiry of the said period. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 10. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 shall file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37