- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28582 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANUSUYA BAI W/O VITTAL RAO JAGATAP, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, PRESIDENT, MULLURU GRAM PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI VTC MULLURU, PO MULLURU, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571610 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBER, MULLURU GRAM PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK -571610 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PATIL SUMANTH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 HUNSUR -571105 3. MULLURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI VTC MULLURU, PO MULLURU, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571121 REPTD. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04.09.2025, ISSUED ON 06.09.2025 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER, BEARING NO:E.L.N.(GRAM.PAN)54/2025, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE E IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS CONCERN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged a notice dated 04.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 convening a meeting of the Panchyat on 20.09.2025 to consider the motion of no-confidence. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 2. The petitioner No.1 is the President of the respondent No.3. The petitioner No.2 is a member of the respondent No.3. The other members of the Panchayat, submitted a notice expressing lack of confidence in petitioner No.1 and requested the respondent No.2 to convene a meeting to consider 'motion of no-confidence'. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 04.09.2025 proposing to hold a meeting of the members on 20.09.2025. The petitioners contend that the notice of the meeting was served upon them on 06.09.2025 and that fifteen days clear notice as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994) was not issued. They therefore submitted that the notice issued is in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 it is incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to ensure that the notice of motion of no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 confidence is served not only on the petitioners but on all the members of Panchayat. He contends that notice to petitioner No.1 was issued on 06.09.2025 as is evident from the postal receipt affixed on the cover containing notice. He therefore submits that there was no clear fifteen days notice as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1994, and consequently, the impugned notice being defective is liable to be set aside. He further contends that petitioner No.2 was also served with the notice on 06.09.2025 and, therefore, she too did not have the benefit of a clear fifteen days’ notice. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed on record the file maintained by respondent No.2, which discloses that the notice to petitioner No.1 was served by affixture on 04.09.2025, as the petitioner No.1 was not available. As regards petitioner No.2, it is contended that she received the notice on 04.09.2025 and has acknowledged receipt thereof. It is therefore submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 was strictly in accordance with the Rules, 1994 and no interference by this Court is warranted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice of motion of no confidence though was dated 04.09.2025 the first attempt made by the respondent No.2 to serve the petitioner No.1 was through RPAD that was on 06.09.2025. He also submits that the signature of petitioner No.2 found in the file is not the signature of petitioner No.2 but is forged. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. The respondent No.3 comprises of 17 members, out of whom, 15 members have moved the notice of motion of no confidence. The question whether the signature of the petitioner No.2 was forged or not cannot be gone into in this writ petition. As regards, the service of notice to the petitioner No.1, admittedly the petitioner No.1 was not in the village, when the notice was sought to be served. The petitioner No.1 has not disclosed in the writ petition why she was not present in the panchayath area or where she had gone. Therefore, it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 can safely be held that when respondent No.2 attempted to serve notice, the petitioner No.1 was not available and therefore, the respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to serve the petitioner No.1 by affixing a copy of the notice on the outer wall of her house. The file placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate bears testimony to the above fact. 8. The attempt of the respondent No.2 to serve notice through RPAD was only after his initial attempt to physically serve the copy of the notice to the petitioner No.1, failed. Therefore, there is ample evidence to show that the petitioner No.1 was served on 04.09.2025 itself. Consequently, the ground urged by the petitioner No.1 that there was no fifteen days clear notice of the motion of no-confidence is without any basis and is liable to be rejected. 9. As regards petitioner No.2, as noted above, this Court cannot go into the question whether the signature of petitioner No.2 is genuine or not. In view of the fact that a large number of members have moved the notice of motion of no-confidence against petitioner No.1, the same cannot be thwarted at the instance of petitioner No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40352 WP No. 28582 of 2025 10. In that view of the matter, petition fails and hence, rejected. 11. It is open for the respondent No.3 to proceed for election of the president of the Panchayath in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15