- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.200414 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: SRI. HANAMANTHAREDDY S/O PAMPANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: ADHYAKSHA BENKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI-585222 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S BUILDING-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) BENAKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222 5. SRI. SHIVALINGAREDDY S/O MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 6. SRI. CHEERANJEEVIREDDY S/O GOPALAREDDY PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 7. SRI. RAMESHAREDDY S/O BASAREDDY AGE: 49 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 8. SMT. HABIBA BEGUM W/O HAMEEDAMIYA AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 9. SMT. BASAMMA W/O HANMANTH AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 10. SMT. LALITAMMA W/O AYYAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 11. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O HASANAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 12. SMT. KASHIBAI W/O ASHOKA AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 13. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O HUSSAINAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT 14. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT ALL OF R/O BENAKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 AND R7) 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 QUASHING - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE NO.¸ÀA/PÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ/59/2024-25 DATED 30.01.2025 CALLING FOR MEETING TO DISCUSS NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A 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, a president of Benkanhalli Grama Panchayath is before this Court challenging the validity of a notice dated 30.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 proposing a meeting of the members of panchayat to consider a motion of no confidence on 14.02.2025. 2. The petitioner contends that he was elected as a president of panchayat on 01.08.2023. The respondent Nos.5 to 14 being the members of the panchayat submitted a representation in Form No.1 before the respondent No.1 on 17.01.2025 expressing lack of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 confidence in the petitioner. The respondent No.3 issued a notice on 30.01.2025 convening a meeting of the members on 14.02.2025. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the validity of the notice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 was bound to issue a notice within 10 days from the date of receipt of representation prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchyat Raj (No Confidence Motion against 'Adyaksha' or Upadyksha'), Rules 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 1994' for short) but the notice is dated 30.01.2025 and the meeting is fixed on 14.02.2025. He has also relied upon the judgment of a full bench of this Court in the case of Shankargouda Vs. State of Karnataka and others [ILR 22 KAR 3691], in support of the contention that the ten days period is mandatory, in so far as it relates to issuing a notice by the respondent No.3. Therefore, he contends that the meeting is fixed on the 15th day from the date of notice and hence is violative of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994. In support of his contention, he relied upon - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 the judgment of full bench of this Court in C. Puttaswamy, Etc., Vs. Smt. Prema, Etc., [AIR 1992 KAR 356]. Thus, he contends that the impugned notice is invalid and consequently no confidence motion is bound to lapse. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, contended that the representation was submitted by the members on 17.01.2025 and that notice was issued on 30.01.2025 proposing a meeting on 14.02.2025. He submits that the entire process is fixed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation filed by the members and hence, even if there are some irregularities, the same does not prejudice the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 5. The learned counsel for the private respondents voiced the submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the private respondents. 7. Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides for expressing lack of confidence in an 'Adyaksha' or Upadyksha' by the members. The Rules 1994 are framed in order to facilitate such no confidence motions. The full bench of this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy referred supra, held that the Rules prescribed for no confidence is a complete code in itself and therefore any violation of the Rules, 1994, would render the whole process invalid. 8. In the case on hand, though members of the panchayat had submitted a representation on 17.01.2025, giving 10 days notice to the respondent No.3 to fix a date of no confidence, the respondent No.3 without issuing a notice within the 10 days period, has slept over the notice and issued a notice on 30.01.2025. The full bench of this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 Court in the case of Shankargouda supra has considered the question whether the 10 days period is mandatory or not and has held that it is mandatory when it relates to issuing a notice to the members to convene a meeting of no confidence. 9. The respondent No.3 was also bound to issue 15 days clear notice to all the members. Contrarily the meeting is fixed on the 15th day from the date of issuing the notice which again contravenes Rules 3(2) of Rules, 1994. It was in similar circumstances that the full bench of this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy had held that violation of the Rules requiring prior notice to the members would render the whole process invalid. 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 30.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 is quashed. 11. However, it is always open for the private respondents to take out fresh proceedings in accordance with law. If the private respondents move a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038 WP No. 200414 of 2025 representation, the respondent No.3 shall take out proceedings in strict compliance with Rules 1994, failing which, he shall be responsible for all costs and consequences. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI