Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharanamma W/O Amaregouda Patil vs The Assistant Commissioner on 1 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
WP No. 100675 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.100675 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. AMAREGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587154.
2. SRI. SANTOSH B. JAGALASAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT,
ASHPAK R/O. PWD GOVERNMENT QUARTERS,
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI BAGALKOT-587154.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
DHARWAD
BENCH TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.
4. THE SECRETARY,
HIRESINGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.
5. SMT. MARIYAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: VICE PRESIDENT,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
6. SRI. VENKANAGOUDA
S/O. MAHANTAGOUDA AADAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
WP No. 100675 of 2025
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
7. SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA BANGI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
8. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. MUTHAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
9. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. YAMANAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
10. SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA HESAROOR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
11. SRI. SANGAPPA BASAPPA MERAKHOOR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
12. SMT. SHEELA W/O. MALLAPPA AWARI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
13. SMT. SAVITA
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KUDLEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
14. SRI. YANKAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA KANNERI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
WP No. 100675 of 2025
15. SMT. HOLEYAMMA W/O. GANGAPPA CHITAVADAGI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
16. SRI. GOPAL S/O. LAXMAN PUJARI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
17. SRI. MALLAPPA GYANAPPA VAJJAL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
18. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. DEVAPPA GODDI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
19. SRI. PAKKAPPAGOUDA
S/O. SANGANAGOUDA JADIYAPPAGOUDAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
20. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. KALAKAPPA ANGADI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
21. SRI. SHANTAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA MADAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
22. SMT. PAVITRA W/O. PRABHUGOUDA GOUDAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2;
SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R4;
MISS. RANJITA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SADYOJAT BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R22)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
WP No. 100675 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NO
CONFIDENCE MEETING NOTICE DATED 23.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY FIXED THE NO CONFIDENCE
MEETING DATED 14.02.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E IN RESPECT
OF ADHYAKSHA (PETITIONER) AND TO COMPENSATE THE
PETITIONER BY IMPOSE THE EXEMPLARY COST ON THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN EXERCISING THE SUO MOTO POWER IN
CAPACITY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY THERE BY
ISSUING "NO CONFIDENCE MEETING NOTICE" DATED 23.01.2025
AS ACTING AGAINST TO THE RULE 3 (1) OF THE KARNATAKA GRAM
SWARAJ AND PANCHAYAT RAJ (MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
AGAINST ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
RULES 1994 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; SUCH
OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FITS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
a) A Writ of nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned No Confidence Meeting Notice dated
23.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.1
authority fixed the no confidence meeting dated
14.02.2025 marked as Annexure-E in respect of
Adhyaksha (petitioner) in the interest of justice
and equity;
b) The petitioner prays this Hon'ble court may please
to compensate the petitioner by impose the
exemplary cost on the respondent no.2 in
exercising the suo moto power in capacity of the
respondent No.1 authority there by issuing "No
Confidence Meeting Notice" dated 23.01.2025 as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
acting against to the Rule 3 (1) of the Karnataka
Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No
Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha
of Gram Panchayat) Rules 1994 in the interest of
justice and equity;
c) Such other writ or order or direction as this
Hon'ble court deems fits on the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated
23.01.2025 issued by respondent No.1-Assistant
Commissioner calling for a meeting to be held on
14.02.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence against
the petitioner, who is the Adyaksha/President of the
Hiresinganagutti Grama Panchayat.
3. The submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for
the petitioner is that
3.1. The notice issued by Assistant Commissioner in
Form No.2 is not in accordance with sub-Rule (1) of
Rule 3 of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against
Adyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat)
Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'). The said notice
does not mention the date on which the requisition
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
notice had been submitted by the members of the
Grama Panchayat.
3.2. The requisition notice has not been enclosed along
with Form No.2 and therefore, the same is in
violation of the mandatory requirement of sub-rule
(1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.
3.3. The requisite number of members have not signed
the requisition notice. As such, the same does not
qualify the requirement of the first proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram
Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the
Act').
3.4. Once earlier, a requisition notice having been
moved by the members of the panchayat, the
same having been challenged before this Court in
WP No.100258/2025 and this Court having
quashed the said requisition notice and the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide order
dated 20.01.2025, in terms of proviso to sub-rule
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
(2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, no notice could be
issued within 30 days of the said order.
3.5. The Order passed by this Court being dated
20.01.2025, no such notice could be issued by the
Assistant Commissioner until 20.02.2025. The
present notice having been issued on 23.01.2025 is
contrary to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the
Rules.
3.6. On an application being made to the Information
Officer of the Assistant Commissioner's office, the
said Assistant Commissioner's office on 28.01.2025
has categorically indicated that there is no
requisition notice submitted on 23.01.2025. As
such, he submits that there is no requisition given
by the members of the Grama Panchayat for the
Assistant Commissioner to act on in terms of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules and issue a notice in
Form No.2 as such the same has been issued Suo
Moto which is not permissible.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
3.7. On all the above grounds, he submits that the
notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at
Annexure-E is required to be quashed by allowing
above petition.
3.8. Apart there from, a request has been made for
compensation to be also awarded to the petitioner
for having violated the mandatory requirement of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.
4. Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 having
produced the original records submits that
4.1. The requisition notice was received by the Assistant
Commissioners' office on 22.01.2025 and a entry
thereof has been made in the inward register, copy
of which has been produced and such entry is
found mentioned at item No.7032.
4.2. It is in furtherance thereof, notice had been issued
on 23.01.2025 providing 15 days clear notice to
the petitioner of the proposed 'no confidence
motion' to be considered on 14.02.2025 and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
meeting to be held at 12:00 PM in the office of the
Grama Panchayat.
4.3. Insofar as the endorsement issued by the Public
Information Officer, he submits firstly that the
application filed by the petitioner was with a
specific request calling upon the Public Information
Officer to indicate if a requisition notice had been
received on 23.01.2025 and it is in that
background that the information has been provided
indicating that no requisition notice was received
on 23.01.2025. If the question had been otherwise,
it could have been answered that a requisition
notice had been received on 22.01.2025. Thus, he
submits that the petitioner cannot place any
reliance on this said reply of the Public Information
Officer.
4.4. A requisition notice having been received by the
Assistant Commissioner on 22.01.2025, the
Assistant Commission has issued the notice fixing
the date of the meeting as 14.02.2025, which
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
provides 10 days clear notice. The same being in
accordance with law, the claims made by the
petitioner not being sustainable, the petition is
required to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri Bhushan
Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3
and 4 and Miss. Ranjita Alagawadi., learned counsel for
Sri Sadyojat Baligattimath., learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.5 to 22. Perused the papers.
6. The points that would arise for consideration are;
1) Whether the Assistant Commissioner can
issue a notice in terms of Form No.2
without a requisition notice having been
received in terms of Form No.1?
2) Whether the requisition notice in terms of
Form No.1 is required to accompany the
notice fixing the meeting in terms of Form
No.2?
3) Whether on a successful challenge having
been made to an earlier notice issued by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
Assistant Commissioner, Assistant
Commissioner cannot issue a notice in
terms of Form No.2 fixing the date of
meeting until 30 days after the quashing of
the earlier notice?
4) Whether the date of receipt of Form No.1 is
mandatorily required to be mentioned in
Form No.2?
5) What order?
7. I answer the above points as under:
8. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1:- Whether the Assistant
Commissioner can issue a notice in terms of Form
No.2 without a requisition notice having been
received in terms of Form No.1?
8.1. The submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition in
Form No.1 has never been received by the
Assistant Commissioner's office. Therefore, notice
under Form No.2 could not have been issued. In
this regard, he relies upon the endorsement issued
by the Information Officer of the Assistant
Commissioner's Office dated 28.01.2025. This reply
of the Public Information Officer is in pursuance of a
requisition made by the petitioner on 24.01.2025. A
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
reading of the said requisition for information
indicates that the request has been made
specifically indicating as to whether any requisition
notice for moving a 'no confidence motion' has been
received on 23.01.2025 and it is in that background
that the Information Officer has replied stating that
no such requisition has been received on
23.01.2025.
8.2. Thus, both the query raised by the petitioner and
the answer given by the Information Officer is with
respect to a requisition notice having been
submitted or received on 23.01.2025. There is no
particular request made in general, enquiring as to
whether any requisition notice has been received.
But a specific request has been made enquiring as
to whether requisition notice has been received on
23.1.2025.
8.3. If at all the petitioner had sought for a general
query, probably the answer could have been
different.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
8.4. Based on the said endorsement issued by the
Information Officer, the petitioner cannot contend
that there is no requisition notice, which has been
received by the Assistant Commissioner. More so,
on a perusal of the original records, which have
been produced which would indicate that in the
inward register, there is entry made at item
No.7032 of the requisition notice having been
received on 22.01.2025. Thus, the endorsement of
the Public Information Officer would not help the
petitioner in any manner, requisition notice having
been received on 22.01.2025, it cannot be said that
there is no requisition notice received by the
Assistant Commissioner.
8.5. Hence answer point No.1 by holding that it is
required for requisition notice in terms of
Form No.1 being received by the Assistant
Commissioner before issuing a notice in terms
of Form 2 fixing a meeting for considering the
no confidence motion. No notice could be
issued by the Assistant Commission in terms
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
of Form 2 suo moto. In the present matter,
such requisition notice having been received
on 22.01.2025, the Assistant Commissioner
has taken necessary action pursuant thereto
by issuing a notice in terms of Form 2 on
23.01.2025, which cannot be said to be suo
moto.
9. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2:- Whether the requisition
notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to
accompany the notice fixing the meeting in terms
of Form No.2?
9.1. The submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition
notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to
accompany the notice issued by the Assistant
Commissioner in Form No.2.
9.2. This issue is no longer res-integra. The aspect has
been considered in detail by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Laxmavva Vs The
State of Karnataka Represented by its
Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2007 Kar
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
1028. The relevant paras being Para-4, 6, 10, 11
and 12 which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference.
"4. We have perused Rule 3(1) read with
Section 49 of the Act and the decision of
the Learned Single Judge in Mallamma's
case as well as the records. No doubt the
learned Single Judge while
considering Mallamma's case has held
that, as requirement of Rule 3(1) is
mandatory in nature, since the notice of
"no-confidence motion" should be in
Form-I and should accompany a copy of
the proposed motion and if there is any
violation of the requirements, the notice
is bad in law.
6. Under Rule 3, procedure has been
prescribed as to how these motions of
no-confidence to be carried out. Clause
(1) requires that, a written notice of
intention to make the motion shall be in
Form-I signed by not less than 1/3 of the
total number of members together with a
copy of the proposed motion to be
delivered in person by any two of the
members signing the notice to the
Assistant Commissioner. As per clause
(2), the Assistant Commissioner
thereafter shall convene a meeting for
consideration of the motion at the office
of the Gram Panchayat on the date
appointed by him which shall not be later
than 30 days from the date of which
notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 was
delivered. It is also mandatory
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
requirement that he shall give to the
members a notice of not less than 15
clear days of such meeting in Form-II.
10. On perusal of the records, especially the
written notice, we find that there is
substantial compliance of Rule 3(1) of
the Rules. In such case, mere attracting
the copy of the proposed motion would
be duplicity of the work and that by itself
cannot be a ground to set at not the
democratic exercise of the members in
functioning of these local Governments.
When the notice of the majority
members makes it clear their intention,
mere non-enclosing the proposal would
be only an irregularity and in our view
does not cause any prejudice to the other
side.
11. The learned Single Judge, in the case
of Mallamma, has merely relied upon the
language of Rule 3(1) and held that if the
notice does not accompany (separately)
the proposed motion of no-confidence, is
bad in law. We do not agree with this
proposition. In our view,
non-compliance has to be seen in the
background as to whether the same has
caused any prejudice to the person
aggrieved.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case and after perusal of the
notice, we find that since the notice also
incorporates the proposal of no-
confidence motion, there is substantive
compliance of the requirement of Rule
3(1) of the Rules. As such, the reliance
placed by the Learned Counsel in the
case of Mallamma, is of no assistance to
the facts of the case."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
9.3. A perusal of para-4 of the aforesaid judgment would
indicate that what fell for consideration of the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is whether the
proposed motion in terms of requisition issued
under Form No.1 should accompany the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Needless to
say in terms of Form No.2).
9.4. The Hon'ble Division Bench has categorically come
to a conclusion at para No.10 extracted above that
when notice of majority members makes it clear
the intention to move a non-confidence motion, the
mere non-enclosing of the proposal (requisition
notice in terms of Form No.1) would be only an
irregularity and does not cause any prejudice to the
other side.
9.5. The proposal which is referred to in para-10 of the
aforesaid order is the requisition notice in Form
No.1 since that is the proposal submitted by the
requisitionists-Grama Panchayat members for
moving a 'no confidence motion'.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
9.6. At para-12 of the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble
Division Bench having come to a conclusion that
since the notice refers to the proposal of no
confidence motion, there is substantive compliance
of the requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the
Rules. The said decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench would equally apply to the present facts.
9.7. A notice having been issued by the Assistant
Commissioner indicating that a proposal for 'no
confidence' would be considered in the meeting to
be held on 14.02.2025. The proposal of 'no
confidence' being referred to in the said notice
issued in Form No.2 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of
the Rules, would be in compliance with the
requirement of law as held by the Division Bench in
the case of Laxmavva (supra).
9.8. Hence I answer Point No.2 by holding that the
requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is not
required to accompany the notice fixing the
meeting in terms of Form No.2, so long as the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
notice in form 2 refers to the agenda of the
said meeting to consider a no-confidence
motion.
10. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3:- Whether on a successful
challenge having been made to an earlier notice issued
by the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant
Commissioner cannot issue a notice in terms of Form
No.2 fixing the date of meeting until 30 days after the
quashing of the earlier notice?
10.1. The submission of Shri Anand R.Kolli, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in terms
of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the
Assistant Commissioner could not issue any notice
until 30 days of the orders passed by this Court
dated 20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, quashing
the earlier requisition notice in Form 1 and Notice of
the Assistant Commissioner in Form 2.
10.2. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule(3) of the Rules,
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
"(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall
thereafter convene a meeting for the
consideration of the said motion at the office
of the Grama Panchayat 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
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
not less than fifteen clear days of such
meeting in Form II: [The Assistant
Commissioner shall make sure that the
allegations delivered are specified in the
attached list of notice to prepare a report
within seven days in respect to 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
members a notice of not less than fifteen
clear days of such adjourned meeting.
10.3. A perusal of the said provision would indicate that if
the holding of a meeting is stayed by an order of
the Court, the Assistant Commissioner would have
to adjourn the meeting fixed and hold the
adjourned meeting on a date not later than 30 days
from the date on which he receives intimation
about the vacation of stay after giving the
members, a notice of not less than 15 clear days of
such adjourned meeting.
10.4. Thus if there is an order of stay of the meeting
proposed to be held to consider the no-confidence
motion the said meeting is required to be
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
adjourned. On the assistant commissioner receiving
intimation of the vacating of the stay, he has to
hold the meeting by fixing a date not more that 30
days from the date on which the intimation of stay
being vacated is received by him.
10.5. In the present case, there is no stay of the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner in WP
No.100258/2025. The said writ petition came to be
disposed on the date it was taken up for admission.
10.6. The purport and intent of the proviso is that when a
stay order has been passed and the matter
adjourned, it is only after the Assistant
Commissioner comes to know of the vacating of the
stay that a notice fixing the meeting not later than
30 days from the date on which received the
information, is to be fixed. However, it is qualified
that such meeting is to be held by issuing a notice
of not less than 15 clear days which would imply
that from the date on which the Assistant
Commissioner comes to know of the vacating of the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
stay a notice of 15 days is to be issued such that
the meeting is held within 30 days of the intimation
being received of the stay being vacated, that does
not mean that he has to wait for 30 days as
contended by Shri. Anand Kolli.
10.7. Thus, even though, there was no stay granted in
WP No.100258/2025, the said writ petition having
been disposed of on 20.01.2025 quashing the
requisition notice as also notice issued by the
Assistant Commissioner. The earlier proceedings
came to an end and the same could not be relied
upon by any of the parties.
10.8. Thus, the question of holding adjourned meeting
would not at all arise since the earlier requisition
and the notice issued by the Assistant
Commissioner could not be considered in the
meeting to be so fixed. The earlier requisition and
notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner having
come to an end with the passing of the order on
20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, any other
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
requisition issued is a new requisition, which would
have to be dealt with in terms of sub-rule (1) of
Rule 3 read with Section 49 of the Act.
10.9. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that in the present matter the proviso to
sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, would not be
applicable. The requisitionists Grama Panchayat
members on 22.01.2025, in terms of the liberty,
which had been reserved vide order dated
20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, had submitted
the requisition. It was for the Assistant
Commissioner to issue a notice of not less than 15
days in terms of first proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 49 of the Act, which had been done in the
present matter.
10.10. I answer Point No.3 by holding that on a
successful challenge having been made to an
earlier notice issued by the Assistant
Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner after
an order being passed setting aside or quashing
the notice issued by him, would have to issue a
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
fresh notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3
within the time prescribed therein in the event of
a fresh requisition being received, he need not
wait for 30 days after the quashing of the earlier
notice. The fresh requisition not being a
continuation of the earlier requisition the embargo
under the third provisio to sub section (1) of
section 49 of THE KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 since the same has
not been considered and negatived by a
Grama Panchayat.
11. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:- Whether the date of
receipt of Form No.1 is mandatorily required to
be mentioned in Form No.2?
11.1. The last submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the notice issued
in Form No.2 should mention the date of the
requisition notice and in this regard, he refers to
Form No.2 appended to the Rules. The said Form
No.2 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
"¥sÁªÀiïð-11
[¤AiÀĪÀÄ 3(2) £ÉÆÃr|
¸ÀÆZÀ£É
«µÀAiÀÄ: UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ CzsÀåPÀë «gÀÄzÀÞ C«±Áé¸À ¤tðAiÀÄ §UÉÎ,
UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwAiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀë «gÀÄzÀÞ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀĪ Û À½ ªÀÄAqÀ£A
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀt¸Â ®
À Ä ¸À¨AsÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22-01-2025 gÀAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ
PÁAiÀiÁð®AiÀÄ »gÉùAUÀ£U À ÀÄwÛ gÀ°è ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsåÀ ºÁß, 12:00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¸À¨sA
É iÀÄ£ÀÄß
¤UÀr¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀz Û .É ¸ÀzÀj ¸À¨U sÉ É RzÁÝV ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä
F ªÀÄÆ®ÄPÀ «£ÀAw¹zÉ.
G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ
EªÀjUÉ,
²æà ±Àgt
À ªÀÄä CªÀÄgÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî
¸Á.»gÉùAUÀ£U À ÀÄwÛ
UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ CzsÀåPÀg
ë ÀÄ »gÉùAUÀ£U
À ÀÄwÛ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 04-01-2025
¸ÀܼÀ :¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ"
11.2. A perusal of the Form No.2 indicates that the
subject should contain a reference to no
confidence motion to be moved against the
Adhyaksha or Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayat.
11.3. It is to be stated in the body of the notice that a
meeting to consider the no confidence motion
against the Adhyaksha or Upadyaksha of Grama
Panchayat, will be held on a particular date at
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
particular time in the office of the Grama
Panchayat.
11.4. Nowhere in the said Form No.2 there is a
requirement to mention the date on which the
requisition notice has been received by the
Assistant Commissioner. The notice in Form No.2
is only required to fix the date on which the
meeting of the Grama Panchayat would be held,
the time at which it would be held and the said
meeting to be held at the Grama Panchayat.
Thus, having gone through the said Form No.2
which has been reproduced herein above, it is
clear that there is no requirement to mention the
date on which the requisition notice has been
received in that view of the matter, this
submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel
for the petitioner would also be liable to be
rejected.
11.5. Hence, I answer point No.4 by holding that
the date of the requisition notice is not
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047
required to be mentioned in the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner fixing
the date for holding a meeting to consider
the no confidence motion.
12. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:- What order ?
12.1. In view of my answers to all the points above, no
grounds being made out, the petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
AM
CT-MCK
