Karnataka High Court
Sri. A M Gangadharayya vs Assistant Commissioner on 4 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
WP No. 100751 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100751 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A M GANGADHARAYYA
S/O KOTTRABASAYYA
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS,
R/O. HANASI, HAGRI BOMMANAHALLI
VIJAYANAGAR-583135.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANJITA G. ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI HOSPHETE, VIJAYANAGAR- 583201
Location: HIGH 2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HAGRI BOMMANAHALLI
DHARWAD
BENCH VIJAYANAGAR-583135
3. SHAKUNTALA W/O RAMESHA
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. WARD 2, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
4. HK CHANDRAPPA S/O MARIYAMMA
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KALLAHALLI, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
WP No. 100751 of 2025
5. SHARDAMMA W/O.PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. KALLAHALLI, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
6. N. HASEN SHARIF S/O. ALLABAKSHI SAB
AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O #2 WARD 1, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST VIJAYANAGAR 583135
7. VIJAYALAKSHMI U W/O U. SIDDESH
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O.#388, WARD 1, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
8. V. VEERESH S/O KOTRAPPA
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O #69, H B HALLI, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST VIJAYANAGAR 583135
9. PALTHYA GANGYA NAIK S/O PREMA NAIK
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALLAHALLI THANDA, HANASI,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
10. YALLAMMA W/O KARIYAPPA
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HB HALLI, HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
11. KOTRESHAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. 29, KANAVINAYAKANA HALLI, HANASI,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
12. G. SHASHIKALA W/O G. PRAKASHA
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANASI, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
WP No. 100751 of 2025
13. V. CHANNAMMA W/O PARASHURAMA
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. KANAVINAYAKANA HALLI, HANASI,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
14. NINGAMMA W/O.BELADERI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE
R/O. KALLAHALLI, H B HALLI, HANASI,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR 583135
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALSURMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. KIRAN M. GOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R14)
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. 23-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF ADHYAKSHA
(PETITIONER) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.
Sri.Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counsel is directed to
accept notice for respondents Nos. 2. Notice to other
respondents is dispensed with in view of the
proposed order to be passed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned notice dated 23-01-2025 issued by
the respondent No.1 Authority marked as
Annexure-A in respect of Adhyaksha (Petitioner)
in the interest of justice and equity.
b. Such other writ or order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the Assistant
Commissioner has issued a notice dated 23/01/2025,
fixing the date of the meeting for moving no-
confidence motion against the petitioner on
11/02/2025 at 11:00 am.
4. The submission of Ms. Ranjitha G. Alagawadi, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, along with the said
notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in Form
No.2, the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1
has not been enclosed. Her next submission is that,
the requisition issued by the members is not in
accordance with Form No.1 and lastly, she submits
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
that, there being the allegations made against the
petitioner, an inquiry under Section 49(2) of the
Gram Panchayat Act, 1993 ('the Act of 1993', for
short) is required to be held.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the
issue as regards enclosing of the requisition notice
along with Form No.2 is not necessary, as held by
this Court in W.P.No.100675/2025 (Sharanamma
Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others)
and W.P.No.100364/2025 (Chetan A.
Channabasappa Vs. State of Karnataka and
Others).
6. Insofar as the second contention that the requisition
submitted by the Gram Panchayat members is not in
accordance with Form No.1, a perusal of Annexure C,
dated 15/01/2025, indicates that the members have
indicated their intention to move a no-confidence
motion against the petitioner. As held by this Court
in W.P.No.100675/2025 and W.P.No.100364/2025,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
such an indication would be sufficient, and it is not
necessary for Form No.1 to be enclosed with the said
requisition notice.
7. Insofar as the last contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner that there are various allegations
which have been made against the petitioner, and as
such, inquiry would have to be held in terms of
Section 49(2) of the Act of 1993, the said Sub-
Section(2) of Section 49 having been deleted from
the statute with effect from 31/03/2020, a notice for
no-confidence motion can be moved with or without
any allegations, and as such, no inquiry is required to
be held.
8. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in W.P.No.50210/2018
(Smt.Poornima Sudhin Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others), is not applicable to the
present case, since the said judgment was rendered
when Subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Act was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2165
still available in the statute book as held by this
Court in W.P.No.100675/2025 (Sharanamma Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner and Others) and
W.P.No.100364/2025 (Chetan A. Channabasappa
Vs. State of Karnataka and Others).
9. In that view of the matter, none of the contentions
urged by the counsel for the petitioner being
maintainable, the petition stands dismissed at the
stage of admission itself.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
