Karnataka High Court
Mrs Bhagyamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
WP No. 30979 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 30979 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS BHAGYAMMA
W/O MR. NINGARAJU,
AGED 45 YEARS,
R/AT YARAGOMBALLI VILLAGE,
YELANDUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 441.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYATH RAJ,
Digitally M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
signed by BANGALORE - 560001.
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
HIGH
COURT OF KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
KARNATAKA KOLLEGALA,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST - 571 440.
3. THE YARABAMBALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
ADIJAMBAVARA STREET,
YARAGAMBALLI VILLAGE, YELADUR TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST - 571 441
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP., FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.S.NARENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
WP No. 30979 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DATED 07/11/2024 IN FORM NO. 2 ISSUED BY THE
R2, ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA, IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THIS
PETITION, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
in 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. A petition is filed challenging a notice by which the
Assistant Commissioner has convened a special
meeting to consider the motion of No-confidence that
had been moved against the petitioner.
2. The Assistant Commissioner received a requisition by
13 members expressing their desire to move a
motion of No-confidence against the petitioner. This
requisition was dated 29.10.2024 and the same was
also received by the Assistant Commissioner on the
same day.
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
3. The Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, issued a
notice dated 07.11.2024, by which, he convened a
meeting on 22.11.2024 at 11.00 a.m.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this
notice was dispatched by the Assistant Commissioner
on 08.11.2024 and was received by the petitioner on
10.11.2024 and the meeting being scheduled on
22.11.2024. It is argued that 15 days' clear notice,
as contemplated under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against
Adhyaksha an Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat)
Rules, 1994 (for short the 'Rules') is not provided,
and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal.
5. Learned counsel sought to place reliance on the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P. No.101890/2022 to support his
arguments.
6. Rule 3(2) of the Rules reads as follows-
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
(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
not less than fifteen clear days of such
meeting in Form II:
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."
7. As could be seen from the above, the primary
obligation under Rule 3(2) of the Rules for the
Assistant Commissioner is to convene a meeting
within 30 days from the date on which he receives
the requisition from the members.
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
8. Basically, under the Rule, the first requirement is
that the meeting should be convened within 30 days
from the date on which the Assistant Commissioner
receives the requisition from the members.
9. The second part of Rule 3(2) of the Rules states that
he shall give to the members a notice of not less
than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form No.II.
10. The Rule does not state that the Assistant
Commissioner should give a notice of 15 days from
the date of service of notice on the members. The
Rule, therefore, requires only that a meeting should
be convened on a day of which there is 15 days clear
notice, thereby meaning that the meeting should be
at least 15 days from the date of the notice. This
would, however, be subject to the primary obligation
to ensure that the meeting is convened within 30
days of the receipt of the requisition.
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
11. If the argument of the petitioner is to be accepted,
the entire process prescribed under Rule 3(2) would
be frustrated inasmuch as if some of the members
avoid service of notice, the convening of a meeting
would be impossible and all that a member is
required to do is to avoid service of notice until the
30 days period prescribed under the Rules to
convene the meeting has elapsed or would be made
to elapse.
12. To illustrate, if a requisition by the members is
received on 1st of a month, the Assistant
Commissioner would have to primarily ensure that
the meeting is convened before the expiry of 30 days
from the 1st of that month. The Assistant
Commissioner is thereafter required to issue notices
to all members. If a member ensures that the notice
sent by the Assistant Commissioner is not delivered
to him till the 16th of that month, it would not be
possible for the Assistant Commissioner to convene a
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
meeting because more than 30 days would have
elapsed if he were to give 15 days clear notice of the
meeting thereafter.
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
15. It must be borne in mind that, in almost all cases,
the Assistant Commissioner does serve a copy of the
notice on the members, though attempts are made
by some members to receive the notices.
16. It is to be stated here that Rule 3(2) is not
dependent on the service of notice on the members
and is only dependent on the requisition being made
by the requisite number of members, as indicated in
Sub-Rule (2) Rule 3. I am, therefore, of the view
that there is no merit in the argument of the
petitioner.
17. As far as the reliance placed on the judgment of this
Court in W.P. No.101890/2022, it is to be noticed
here that in the said decision, the Co-ordinate Bench
has not considered the scope of Rule 3(2) nor did it
interpret Rule 3(2) and it has decided the Writ
Petition on the factual matrix therein. I am,
therefore, of the view that the said decision would be
NC: 2025:KHC:4702
of no avail. Consequently, there is no merit in the
Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed.
18. Since the meeting convened with the Assistant
Commissioner was stayed by virtue of an interim
order of this Court, it would be appropriate to direct
the Assistant Commissioner to conduct a special
meeting within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
HNM
