[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ms.Gowthami B vs The State Of Karnataka By on 19 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.207 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.19571 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.20174 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.4557 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
IN WA NO.207/2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. VEENA T
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
W/O KUMARA SWAMY R
PRESIDENT
THIPPASANDRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
RASTE PALY VILLAGE,
TALEKERE DHAKALE
BAGINAGERE POST,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 131.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANDANAPPA GURAPPA BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY IT'S SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
M.S. BUILDING,
2
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAGAR TALUK
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
1ST FLOOR,
B M ROAD,
RAMANAGAR.
3. THE THIPPSANDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH
REP. BY PANHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
THIPPASANDRA VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
RAMNAGAR DIST.
4. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TIPPASANDRA POST
TIPPASANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR.
5. GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THIGARALA PLAYA
TIPPASANDRA POST
TIPPASANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
6. GANGADHAR T B
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O G BETTAYA
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TALAKERE DODDA
MUDEGERE POST
TIPPASANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
3
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
7. PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O NAGAACHAR
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TIPPASANDRA
TIPPASANDRA POST
TIPPASANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
8. RAGHU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O VENKATARAMANNA SHETTY
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TIPPASANDRA
TIPPASANDRA POST
TIPPASANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
9. RATHANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
W/O JAYARAMMAYAH
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
RASTHE PLAYA
BAGINGERI POST
THIGARALA PLAYA
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
10 . RAMESH J S
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
GUDDAGOWRAPLAYA,
BAGINGERI POST,
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
4
11. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE YALLALLAKAYA
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
BAGINGERI,
BAGINGERI POST
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
12. RAJESH B.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O BETTAYA,
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
GIGAGULURSANKIGATTA POST
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
13. VENKATALAKSHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O YERAYANNA
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
BAGINGERI POST,
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
14. SWARASWATHAMMA K.H.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O MANJUNATH P.D.
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PALAYADHAHALLIBISKUR POST,
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
15. HUCAHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O DASEGOWDA
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ANNESHASTRE PALYA
TIPPESANDRA POST
5
TIPPESANDRA HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3 - SD;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADV. FOR R4 - R10;
R11, R12, R13, R14 & R15 - SD, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ISSUE A SET ASIDE
WRIT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN
WRIT PETITION NO.35255/2024 (LB-RES) ORDER DATED
31.01.2025 HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
AND ETC.
IN WP NO.19571/2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PRESIDENT,
ANNEGERE GRAM PANCHAYATH,
R/AT ANEGERE VILLAGE AND POST,
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOMENT,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION,
TARIKERE 577 228.
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.
4. SRI DEVALA NAIK
S/O SRI SEVA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. SRI MANJUNATHA A G
S/O B V GUTHYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
6. SMT. M. SOWBHAGYA
W/O SRI NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT ANEGERE VILLAGE AND POST,
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
7. SMT. LATHA M. S.
W/O SRI HARISH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
7
8. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O SRI DHARMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
9. SMT. POORNIMA A P
W/O SRI PREM KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
10 . SRI NATARAJ M D
S/O SRI DHARMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MUTHANEGERE VIL. AND PO,
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
11 . SRI RAMESH NAIK M D
S/O SRI DEVALA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT M L THANDYA VILLAGE,
MUTHANEGERE POST
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
12 . SRI N T MALLIKARJUN
S/O SRI THAMMAYYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
ANEGERE POST,
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
13 . SMT. H K SAVITHA
W/O SRI RAVI KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DEVARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANEGERE POST,
PANCHANAHALLI HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
8
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 13 ARE
PRESENT MEMBERS OF
ANEGERE GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KADUR TALUK.
14. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ANEGERE PANCHAYATH
KADUR TALUK - 577 182.
CHICKMAGALUR DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADV. FOR R14;
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER
OF MEETING NOTICE FORM-2, VIDE NO.ALN-GRAPAN-
AVISHWASA-01/2025-26, DATED 24.06.2025 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AS AT ANNEXURE-K TO THE
WRIT PETITION.
IN WP NO.20174/2025:
BETWEEN:
MR.SIDDANNA
S/O LATE MARANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.08,
MADAMUTTENAHALLI
HUCHHAVVANAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANAGERE 577 528.
...PETITIONER
9
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, 3RD GATE,
3RD FLOOR,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANGERE DISTRICT 577 528.
3. ANABURU GRAM PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ANABUR,
JAGALUR TALUK
DAVANGERE 577 528.
4. MR.MALLIKARJUNA
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O KANANAKATTE VILLAGE
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
5. MR. SIDDAPPA H
S/O BIN HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O JYOTHIPURA,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 528.
6. MR. M. M. NAGARAJ,
FATHER NAME NOT NONE,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O JYOTIPURA.
10
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
7. MR. SHIVANNA,
FATHER NAME NOT NONE,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O HANUMAVVANAGTHI VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
8. MR. KRISHNA NAYAK
S/O GOPYANAYAK,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O GANDHINAGAR,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
9. MR. BHORAPPA,
FATHER NAME NOT NONE,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
10 . MRS. KAMALA
W/O DODDARAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/O ANBUR GOLLARAHATTI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 528.
11 . MRS.SHIVAMMA W/O JOGAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O ANBUR GOLLARAHATTI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528.
12 . MRS.SHIVALINGAMMA
W/O CHITHAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O ANABUR GOLLARAHATTI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
11
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
13 . MRS. VANAJAKSHAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O DODDABOMMANAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528.
14 . MRS.AKKAMMA
W/O MALLESHA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O THIMMALAPURA J
AGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
15 . MRS. SANNAGAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577528.
16 . MRS. NARAMMA,
FATHER NAME NOT NONE,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577528.
17 . MR. SOMASHEKAR B.L.,
FATHER NAME NOT NONE,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O ANBUR JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577528.
18 . MRS. JYOTHI
W/O RAVI,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O JYOTHIPURA JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577528.
19 . MRS.MEENAKSHI BAI
12
W/O PEEKANAIKA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O BATAGARANAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577528.
20 . MRS. SOPHIA KAUSAR
W/O NOORUDDIN,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O GOGUDDU VILLAGE,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577528.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATIMA HONNAPURA, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N.K.JAGADEESHWARA, ADV. FOR R3;
V/C/O DT:9.7.25, NOTICE TO R4 TO R20 WAS DEFERRED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE
DATED 23-06-2025 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TARIKERE SUBDIVISION, TARIKERE/RESPONDENT NO.2
BEARING NO. ELECTION:CR/26/2025-26 WHEREBY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT HAS CONVENED MEETING ON 11.07.2025 AT
11.00AM TO CONSIDER THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION MOVED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/PRESIDENT OF NAGENAHALLI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE.
13
IN WP NO.4557/2025:
BETWEEN:
MS. GOWTHAMI B
D/O LATE BALEGOWDA B.K.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A BALEGOWDANAPALYA,
KOTTAGERE HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR 572 130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY
BY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR,
3RD GATE,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
FIRST FLOOR,
MINIVIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMAKURU - 572101.
3. KOTTAGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572130.
4. SMT. CHIKKATAYAMMA,
W/O KRISHNAPPA L.,
AGED MAJOR,
KOTTAGEREPALYA,
KOTTEGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
14
TUMAKURU 572130.
5. SMT. HANUMAMMA
W/O CHENNAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
KOTTAGEREPALYA,
KOTTEGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
6. SHRI. CHELUVAMURTHY,
AGED MAJOR,
S/O CHALUVAYYA,
KODIHALLI PALYA,
BHAKTARAHALLI POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
7. SRI. MURTHY,
S/O LATE MUDALAGIRAYYA,
AGED MAJOR,
HOSAHALLI,
KOTTEGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
8. SRI. RAJIV,
S/O RANGASWAMAYYA,
AGED MAJOR,
MESTRIRAMANNANAPALYA,
HOSAHALLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
9. SRI. PARAMESH,
S/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
MAAVINAKATTEPALYA,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
15
10 . SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE HUCHAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
KODIHALLIPALYA
BHAKTARAHALLI POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572120.
11 . SRI. MOHAN KUMAR,
S/O, NARAYANAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
KOTTAGERE,
KOTTAGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
12 . SMT. JYOTHI
W/O RAVI
AGED MAJOR,
KOTTAGERE,
KOTTAGERE POST
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
13 . SMT. APNA KHAN,
W/O ARIF ULLA KHAN,
AGED MAJOR,
KOTTAGERE,
KOTTAGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
14 . SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE NARAYANA,
AGED MAJOR,
NEELATHAHALLI,
BIDANAGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
15 . SRI. N.N. CHINNIGAPPA,
S/O, LATE NANJAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
16
NEELATHAHALLI,
BIDANAGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
16 . SRI. PUTTASIDDAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA N
AGED MAJOR,
NEELATHAHALLI,
BIDANAGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. V.RAJAIAH, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6, C/R8, R11, C/R15 & R16)
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 THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 30/01/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A
BEARING NO.ELN(KU) CR:48/24-25 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
THESE WRIT APPEAL AND WRIT PETITONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND
05.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
17
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeal No.207/2025 is filed against the order
dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.35255/2024 (LB-RES).
Writ Petition No.19571/2025 is filed seeking to quash
the meeting notice given in Form-II, vide No.ALN-GraPan-
Avishwasa-01/2025-26, dated 24.06.2025 issued by
respondent No.3 at Annexure 'K' to the Writ Petition.
Writ Petition No.20174/2024 is filed seeking to quash
the Notice dated 23.06.2025 issued by Assistant
Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere-
respondent No.2 bearing No.Election:CR/26/2025-26
whereby respondent no. 2 has convened meeting on
11.07.2025 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the no-confidence
motion moved against the petitioner/President of
Nagenahalli Grama Panchayat, vide Annexure 'A' and all
further proceedings pursuant to the notice.
Writ Petition 4557/2025 is preferred seeking to quash
the impugned notice dated 30.01.2025 bearing No.ELN(KU)
CR.48/24-25 issued by respondent no.2.
2. We have heard Shri. P.P. Hegde, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned
Advocate appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.20174/2025, Shri. A.M.Maheshwarappa, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.19571/2025
and Shri. Andanappa Gurappa Ballolli, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.207/2025. Shri.
Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P. No.4557/2025.
Shri. Chandrashekar L, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.4 to 10 in W.A.No.207/2025, Shri. Ashok N.
Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14 in
W.P.No.19571/2025 and Shri. N.K.Jagadeeshwara, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in
W.P.No.20174/2025. Shri V. Rajaiah, learned counsel for
respondents No.4 to 6, Caveator/respondent No.8, 11
Caveator/respondent No.15 and 16 in W.P.No.4557/2025.
Smt. Pratima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State in Writ Appeal
No.207/2025, W.P.No.19571/2025 and 20174/2025. Smt.
Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.4557/2025.
3. These writ petitions have been placed before us
for consideration on account of Reference Order dated
28.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.4557/2025, Reference Order
dated 05.03.2025 in Writ Appeal No.207/2025 the Reference
Order dated 10.07.2025 in Writ Petitions No.19571/2025
and 20174/2025. The reference has been made on account
of the difference of opinion expressed in three judgments of
learned Single Judges of this Court.
4. On a conjoint reading of the orders of Reference,
we notice that these four questions have been placed for our
consideration:-
(i) Whether the requirement of giving "not less than
fifteen clear days' notice" under Rule 3(2) of the
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence
against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama
Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is to be construed as
mandatory or directory?
(ii) Whether the statutory phrase "give a notice of not
less than fifteen clear days" refers to the date of
dispatch of notice or the date of its actual delivery to
the members?
(iii) Whether both the date of receipt of notice and the
date of meeting are to be excluded in computing the
"15 clear days" notice period and whether non-
exclusion of these dates would invalidate the
proceedings?
(iv) To what extent can substantial compliance with
procedural requirements under the Panchayat Raj
Rules validate a no-confidence motion, particularly
when requisitions or notices deviate from the
prescribed form or timeline?
5. It is due to the divergence of opinion of the
learned Single Judges of this Court in:-
• Sri Venkataram & Another. v. Assistant
Commissioner, Kolar reported in ILR 2009 KAR 4078;
• Smt. Geeta K.V. v. The State of Karnataka and
Others, by Order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Writ
Petition No.12724 of 2022 (LB-ELE);
• Mrs. Bhagyamma v. State of Karnataka & Ors. by
order dated 01.02.2024 passed in W.P. No.
30979/2024; and
• Smt. Sharadabai v. The State of Karnataka and
others by order dated 31.05.2022 passed in
W.P.No.101890/2022.
6. The learned Single Judge has also considered the
decisions in Abdul Razak v. The Assistant
Commissioner, Davanager Sub-Division, Davanagere
& Ors., reported in 2004 SCC OnLine Kar 505. The
judgment of the Full Bench in C. Puttaswamy v. Smt.
Prema, etc. reported in 1992 SCC OnLine KAR 74, has
also been referred.
7. In the decision of a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Sri Venkataram's case (supra), it is held that
giving of 15 days clear notice in Form II as provided in Rule
3(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raja
(Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 ('1994
Rules' for short) is only directory in nature and that violation
of the said provisions does not vitiate the proceeding. It
was held that the date of receipt of notice is not the
determining factor but the date of giving of notice is to be
considered for reckoning the period of notice.
8. In Writ Petition No.12724/2022, the learned
Single Judge, after referring to the full-bench decision in C.
Puttaswamy's case (Supra), it is held that the 15 days
clear notice required for the conduct of a no-confidence
motion is mandatory. However, it was further held that the
15 clear days are to be reckoned from the date of service of
the notice on members of the Panchayat.
9. However, in Writ Petition No.30979/2024, the
learned Single Judge on 01.02.2025, held as follows:-
"13. Surely, it is not the intention of the legislature
that wayward members should be allowed to adopt
means that would frustrate the right of members to
express their want of confidence in the Adhyaksha or the
Upadhakshya and the Rule should be interpreted in a
manner which fulfils the objective of the legislature and
not in a manner which destroys its basic intent.
14. It is to be stated here that the only limitation
prescribed under Rule 3(2) is that the meeting would
have to be convened within 30 days of the requisition
having been received by the Assistant Commissioner.
There is no requirement in the Rule that the members
are required to be served first, before a date for the
meeting is fixed."
10. In Writ Petition No.101890/2022, the learned
Single Judge held that the Rule requires 15 clear days of
notice, that is, excluding the date on which the notice is sent
and the date of the no-confidence motion. It is on account
of the difference in opinion that the present cases have been
referred to this Bench.
11. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.No.20174/2025 contends that that the
mandatory statutory requirement of "15 clear days" notice
under Rule 3(2) has not been complied with. The notice
dated 23.06.2025 was served on the petitioner on
28.06.2025, whereas the meeting was fixed for 01.07.2025,
which does not satisfy the requirement of 15 clear days
between the date of receipt of notice and the date of the
meeting. Form-I was not furnished along with the notice.
Form-I was subsequently served on the petitioner's wife on
01.07.2025, which does not amount to valid service.
12. It is further contended that the Assistant
Commissioner acted in haste and without application of
mind, as the mandatory waiting period of 10 days from the
date of receipt of the members' requisition was not
observed. The impugned notice also fails to disclose the
allegations or grounds for the No Confidence Motion, thereby
violating principles of natural justice.
13. It is further submitted that no notice of intention
to hold the meeting was served on the President as required
under Section 52 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Panchayat Raj Act' for short), and
that Form No.1 itself is invalid, rendering all subsequent
proceedings void ab initio.
14. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.No.20174/2025 has relied on the following
decisions:-
• Sangappa v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur
District & Anr., reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1102;
• Jai Charan Lal Anal v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported
in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 288;
• Smt. Roopa v. The State of Karnataka, reported in
ILR 2019 KAR 1373;
• Smt. Hanamavva v. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bagalkot & Ors., reported in ILR 2022 KAR 4953.
• National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680;
• State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Ajay Kumar
Sharma and Another, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 289;
and
• R. Muniswamy v. The State of Karnataka and Others,
by Order dated 23.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition
No.52364/2018 (LB-ELE).
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
W.A.No.207/2025 submitted that the appellant was served
notice dated 19.12.2024 on 24.12.2024 and the date for the
special meeting was fixed on 07.01.2025. As the meeting
convened on 07.01.2025 was adjourned, the learned Single
Judge re-fixed the meeting date for the no-confidence
motion as 10.02.2025 at 11:00 am, under Rule 3(2) of the
1994 Rules. It is contended that the learned Single Judge
has committed a jurisdictional error because it is the
Assistant Commissioner who is empowered to fix the date,
time and place of the special meeting. The Court cannot
substitute its own date in place of the statutory authority.
16. It is further contended that the Assistant
Commissioner has failed to comply with the directions of the
learned Single Judge regarding issuance of notice to the
members who were not present before the Court. The
learned Single Judge had observed that fresh notice was not
required for those who were present before the Court but
must be issued to those who were absent. However, the
Assistant Commissioner did not serve notice upon the
absent members. This procedural irregularity further vitiates
convening of the special meeting, rendering the proposed
meeting date of 10.02.2025, as illegal.
17. It is also further contended that under the threat
and influence of the Panchayat member, the appellant had
to tender her resignation on 12.12.2024. Although, she
withdrew the resignation within ten days on 20.12.2024 and
the Assistant Commissioner acknowledged the withdrawal,
this fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P.No.19571/2025 has raised similar contentions
relating to violation of Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
It is further contended that the date of receipt of notice is
uncertain making computation of 15 clear days impossible.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.No.4557/2025 contends that a No-Confidence Motion
had been initiated against the petitioner through a notice
dated 30.01.2025, which was allegedly served on her by
way of affixture on 13.02.2025. The meeting to consider the
No-Confidence Motion had been fixed on 21.02.2025 at
11:00 am. It is contended that the notice was not properly
served and that mandatory statutory requirements under
Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 3(2) of the
1994 Rules have not been complied with. It is further
contended that the contents of the No-Confidence Motion,
including the names of the signatories and the date of
submission, were not disclosed to the petitioner.
20. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents/State, on the other hand,
contended that what is contemplated is the dispatch of
notice which is the only step which can be ascertained with
certainty. It is contended that in the light of the language of
the provision, the "15 days time" will have to be considered
from the date on which the notice is dispatched in
accordance with the Section and the Rule. It is contended
that since the date of receipt is open to interpretation and
cannot be clearly ascertained by the Authority, it cannot be
relied upon for calculating the 15 days period.
21. It is further contended that the requirement of
giving "not less than fifteen clear days' notice" under Rule
3(2) of the Rules, 1994 must be construed as mandatory,
because the procedure implements a statutory right granted
to members under Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The
Rules are framed under a delegated power conferred by
Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act, which deals with the
removal of an elected office bearer. Since the rule
prescribes the mechanism for exercising this statutory right,
strict adherence to the procedural requirement of Rule 3(1)
and Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules, is necessary. Therefore, it
is contended that notice must be issued strictly in
accordance with the Rules 1994.
22. It is further contended that although the rule is
mandatory, the question of compliance must be assessed
through the prism of whether substantial prejudice has been
caused. The learned AAG contended that any minor shortfall
in clear-day computation is only a procedural irregularity
cured by Section 57(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, and the
proceedings cannot be invalidated unless the Adhyaksha
proves actual prejudice. If the purpose behind the rule
providing adequate opportunity to the elected head is
satisfied, minor computational or technical irregularities will
not invalidate the meeting.
23. It is further contended that, for the purpose of
computing the fifteen clear days' notice period, the operative
date is the date of dispatch or issuance of the notice by the
competent authority and not the date of actual receipt by
the members. Once the notice is dispatched with proper
addressing and postage, the statutory requirement of
"giving notice" is fulfilled. Delivery is only a procedural step,
and the process begins at issuance.
24. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents relied on the following
citations:-
• Geetha Pandit Rao & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka
& Ors., by order dated 30.11.2020 passed in
W.P.No.7717/2020 and W.P.No.226494/2020;
• Smt. Chinnamma v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.,
by order dated 01.02.2025 passed in
W.P.No.31799/2024 c/w. W.P.No.32470/2024;
• Smt. Savitri v. The State of Karnataka & Ors., by
order dated 18.02.2025 passed in
W.A.No.200026/2025 c/w. W.A.No.200029/2025;
• T. Nagaraju v. Asst. Commissioner & Ors., by order
dated 11.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.4355/2019
along with connected matters;
• Sri Dilipa B.T. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka &
Ors., by order dated 23.07.2025 passed in
W.P.No.20789/2025;
• K.Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda & Ors., reported
in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 278; and
• Gouri Shankar v. Asst. Commissioner, by order dated
08.01.2014 passed in W.P.No.100123/2014.
25. We have considered the contentions advanced. A
Full-Bench of this Court in C. Puttaswamy's case (supra)
was considering the provisions of Section 47(3) of the
Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal
Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayats, Act 1983 ('1983 Act' for
short). The provision was almost identical to Rule 3(2) of the
1994 Rules. Section 47(3) of the 1983 Act provided the
Assistant Commissioner shall give to the members a notice
of "not less than 15 clear days" of such meeting in such
manner as may be prescribed. Relying on the judgments of
the Apex Court in K.Narasimhaiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda
reported in AIR 1966 SC 330 and Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul
Gani Lone reported in (1980) 1 SCC 403, the Full Bench
held that Section 47 of 1983 Act is a complete code in itself
deliberately provided by the legislature, having regard to the
importance of the elective office of the Pradhan and Upa-
pradhan. The question referred was therefore answered thus
at paragraph No.18, which reads as follows:-
"18. The provision under S. 47(3) of the
Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis,
Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983,
requiring the Assistant Commissioner to give to members
of a Mandal Panchayat notice of a meeting for
consideration of a motion of no-confidence against the
Pradhan or Upa-pradhan "of not less than 15 clear days of
such meeting" is mandatory."
26. From a clear reading of the said judgment of the
Full Bench and the judgments of the Apex Court which are
relied on therein, we are clear in our mind that the
provisions of Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 3
of 1994 Rules are mandatory in nature. We are of the
opinion that the fourth question raised in this reference also
stands answered by the Full Bench judgment.
27. There is no requirement for us to consider the
said issues afresh. In the light of the finding of the Full
Court, we are bound by the same and we answer the
reference holding that the not less than 15 clear days notice
under Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules is to be construed as
mandatory. The fourth question posed is also answered
holding that the provisions of the Rules require strict
compliance.
28. We are also of the opinion that the clear days
notice as provided in the Rules has to be computed
excluding the day of giving notice and the day on which the
no-confidence motion is to be held. This is clearly so in view
of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the
decision of the Apex Court in Jai Charan Lal Anal's case
(supra), which held as follows:-
"4. x x x x Since the notice was despatched on the
17th and presumably reached the next day the learned
counsel excludes the date of receipt of the notice and the
date of the meeting and says that seven days did not
intervene. In our judgment this is an erroneous reading of
the sub-section. The sub-section says that the District
Magistrate shall send the notice not less than seven clear
days before the date of the meeting and the word "send"
shows that the critical date is the date of the despatch of
the notice. As the notice was sent on the 17th and the
meeting was to be called on the 25th, it is obvious that
seven clear days did intervene and there was no breach
of this part of the section."
29. Therefore, the only question which needs our
consideration in this batch of writ petitions and writ appeal
is:
Whether the phrase give a notice of not less
than 15 clear days refers to the date of dispatch of
notice or the date of its actual delivery to the
members?
30. To consider this question, the relevant provisions
of law require to be considered. Section 49 of the Panchayat
Raj Act reads as follows:-
"49. Motion of no-confidence against
Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.-
[(1)] Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama
Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his
office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him
is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the
total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a
meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance
with the procedure as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such resolution shall be moved
unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than
[one-half] of the total number of members and at least
ten days notice has been given of the intention to move
the resolution:
[Provided further that no resolution expressing
want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha, shall be moved [within the first [fifteen
months]] from the date of his election:
Provided also that where a resolution expressing
want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has
been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a
similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [six
months] from the date of the decision of the Grama
Panchayat.]"
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 reads as follows:-
" 3. Motion of No-confidence.- (1) A written
notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso
to Section 49 shall be in Form- I Signed by [not less than
specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of
members together with a copy of the proposed motion
shall be delivered in person [specified under sub-section
(2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with
notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences
submitted in person] by any two of the members signing
the notice to the Assistant Commissioner.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter
convene a meeting for the consideration of the said
motion at the office of the Grama Panchayath on the date
appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days
from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was
delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of
not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form
II: [The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the
allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of
notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of
Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer]:
Provided that where the holding of such meeting is
stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant
Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall
hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty
days from the date on which he receives the intimation
about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members,
after giving to the memebers a notice of not less than
fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.
(3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every
member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.-
(a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to
such member; or
(b) if such member is not found, by leaving such
notice at his last known place of residence or
business within the Grama Panchayat or by
giving or tendering the same to some adult
member or servant of his family; or
(c) by registered posts; or
(d) if none of the means aforesaid be available,
by affixing such notice on some conspicuous
part of the house, if any, in which the
member is known to have last resided or
carried on business within the Grama
Panchayat.
(4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two
thirds of the total number of members of the Grama
Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at
such meeting.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or
these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of
considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any
reason be adjourned.
(6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after
the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall
stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1)
shall lapse.
(7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-
rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall
read to the member of the Grama Panchayat, the motion
for the consideration of which the meeting has been
convened and shall put it to vote without any debate.
(8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak
on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to
vote thereon.
(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not
less than two thirds of the total number of members of
the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhayksha, as
the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such
and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be,
notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of
the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such
cessation, if he is not present at the meeting.
(10) After the cessation is notified under sub-rule
(9) the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be
shall, immediately hand over all documents, moneys or
other properties of the Grama Panchayat in his custody to
the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat.
(11) The election to the office of Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha shall not be held until the notification under
sub-rule (9) removing the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as
the case may be, is published.
FORM II
[See Rule 3(2)]
NOTICE
Sub: No-Confidence Motion against Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksh of ......... Grama Panchayt - reg.
A meeting to consider the No-Confidence Motion
Against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of .......... Grama
Panchayat will be held on ........... (week day) the ..........
day (date) of ............. (Month) 19 ........... (Year) at
................ (time) in the office of the said Grama
Panchayat.
You are therefore requested to attend the said
meeting on the date and at the place and time mentioned
above.
Assistant Commissioner
To,
Sri/Smt....................."
31. The learned Single Judge in the reference order
has referred to these provisions and has also noticed that
the entire exercise of accepting the notice in Form I
submitted by the required number of members to the
issuance of notice to individual members and the holding of
the no-confidence motion have all to be completed within a
period of 30 days, failing which, the meeting for the no-
confidence motion cannot be held. The intention of providing
15 clear days notice to the members is only to see that the
members have the required time to know that a no-
confidence motion is being moved, so that the presence of
the maximum number of members at the motion. The
procedure of issuance of notice cannot be a pedantic
exercise to defeat a no-confidence motion being conducted
at all. No hyper technicalities can be pleaded in the matter
of conducting grass root level administration at the basic
level of democratic Governance. If the Adhyaksha or the
Upadhyaksha of a Panchayat has lost the confidence of the
majority of the members constituting the Panchayat, then a
no-confidence motion is liable to be moved within the time
as provided in the rules.
32. In Gita Pandit Rao's case (supra), the learned
Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 30.11.2020,
considering the decisions of the Division Bench as well as
the Full Bench of this Court and the decision in M.
Muniappa v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1998
Karnataka 3989, held that the relevant date for
consideration of the notice of no-confidence motion would be
the date of issuance of notice of motion by the Competent
Authority and not the date of receipt of such notice by the
members of the Panchayat. This conclusion was reached
after interpreting the decisions including Bench decisions of
this Court on the point. Paragraph No.61 of the judgment in
Gita Pandit Rao's case (supra), reads as follows.:-
"61. In order to answer the averments made by the
petitioners with regard to amendment to Rule 3(2) of the
Rules, 2020, the interpretation of calculating the requisite
number of days for issuing Form-II was considered by this
Court in the case of GOURI SHANKAR (supra) wherein this
Court, while dealing with Section 47 of the Panchayat Raj
Act, held as follows:
"Procedure prescribed under Rule 3 is
to effectuate the purpose and intent of
substantive law namely, Section 49 of
Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, and even
considering the fact that Full Bench of this
Court has held compliance of Rule 3 is
mandatory, when facts on hand are
examined, it would clearly indicate that the
notice of meeting-Annexure-A dated
23.12.2013 for considering no-confidence
motion meeting is proposed to be held on
10.01.2014 and merely because petitioner
has received said notice on 29.12.2013 and
thereby there is shortfall of 15 days notice,
would not be a ground to interfere by this
Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is not the receipt of notice but the date of
dispatch of meeting notice which would be a
factor which requires to be considered for
examining as to whether there is infraction of
Rule 3(2)."
33. It is to be borne in mind that the word used in the
Rule is "give" notice. Notice can be given to each member
by the four means stated in Rule 3(3) of 1994 Rules. Giving
a notice by registered post involves the act of sending the
notice and the recipient receiving the notice. However,
when the word 'give' is used in a context where the entire
exercise under the Rule is required to be completed in a
time bound manner, the provision cannot be interpreted in a
manner that will defeat the very purpose of the provision.
In all other modes of service under Rule 3(3) of 1994 Rules,
that is, tender of notice to the member, leaving it at his last
known place of residence and affixture, the act of giving
notice is complete once the act is done, regardless of
whether the member actually receives the notice.
34. We also notice that the question of each member
of the Panchayat receiving the notice sent by registered post
is not something which can be ascertained with any degree
of certainty. If the receipt of notice sent by registered post
by each member of the Panchayat is to be taken into
account, the conduct of a no-confidence motion can easily
be defeated by some members evading notice, so that the
statutory period of 30 days from the date of notice given by
the required number of members, is defeated and the no-
confidence motion cannot be moved. This cannot be the
intention of the statute. However, to say that the date of the
notice is to be taken into account is also fraught with
difficulties because the Assistant Commissioner, who is
entrusted with the sending of the notice can date the notice
or even pre-date it, but delay the sending of the notice to
the members to defeat proper attendance at the no-
confidence motion.
35. Having considered the contentions advanced and
the provisions of the rules and the decisions on the point, we
are clearly of the opinion that the only date which can be
certainly relied on as the starting point for the 15 clear days
notice is the date on which the notice is dispatched to the
members of the Panchayat by the designated authority by
the method prescribed by law.
36. It is the date of dispatch of the notice under Rule
3(2) of the 1994 Rules in Form II that starts the clock for
counting the '15 clear days'. Therefore, the '15 clear days'
under Rule 3(2) of the Rules 1994 has to be computed from
the date of dispatch of the notice by excluding the said day
as well as the day on which the 'No-confidence motion' is
held. We answer the reference accordingly. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal No.207/2025 fails.
37. In the above view of the matter, we answer the
reference as follows:-
(i) The requirement of giving not less than 15 clear
days notice under Rule 3(2) of the 1994 Rules is
mandatory in nature.
(ii) The statutory phrase "give" notice of not less
than 15 clear days refers to the date of dispatch
of notice and not the date of its actual delivery to
members.
(iii) The date of dispatch of the notice and the date of
meeting are to be excluded in computing the 15
clear days notice period.
(iv) Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is
required to validate a no-confidence motion and
the form of notice and the timeline are to be
adhered to.
38. We have considered the facts of the cases in the
light of the answers to the reference. Since the primary
contention urged in these cases is with regard to the non-
availability of 15 clear days notice from the date of receipt of
the notice by the members to the date of convening of the
Special General Meeting, we are of the opinion that the writ
appeal and the writ petitions cannot succeed.
39. The starting point for notice to the members
under Rule 3(2) of 1994 Rules is the date of dispatch of the
notice. The reference is answered as above.
40. In the result:-
(i) Writ Appeal No.207/2025, is
dismissed.
(ii) Writ Petitions No.20174/2025,
19571/2025 and 4557/2025, are
dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed
of in all the matters.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
