Karnataka High Court
Bhimashankar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 4 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
WP No. 200273 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200273 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
1. BHIMASHANKAR S/O BHIMARAYA,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KOLLUR, R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. : KALABURAGI-585222.
2. SMT. MUMTAZA BEGUM
W/O BASHA MIYA,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYATH, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: High (BY SRI. J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATE)
Court Of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
WP No. 200273 of 2025
3. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO),
OFFICE OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
4. ERANNA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
5. SRI. VIKRAM PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
6. SRI. SHANTAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
7. SMT. NARASINGAMMA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
8. SMT. SHOBHA BHAJANTRI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
9. SMT. NAGAMMA DESAI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
WP No. 200273 of 2025
10. SMT. SUNITA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
11. SMT. RANJITA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
12. SRI SRINIVASA BHOYAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
13. SRI MOHAMMAD GOUSE,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR, TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
14. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O MAHANTAPPA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
AND MEMBER OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KOLLUR,
R/O KOLLUR TQ. SEDAM,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
...RESPONDENTS
(by SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 AND R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE OF MEETING OF NO
CONFIDENCE AS PER ANNEXURE-C NO.PÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀu/É 48/2024-25
DATED 17.12.2024 AND NOTICE OF CONSIDERING MOTION OF
NO CONFIDENCE ¸ÀA/PÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀu/É 48/2024-25 DATED 22.01.2025
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
WP No. 200273 of 2025
OF KOLLUR GRAM PANCHAYAT AGAINST THE ADHYAKSHA AND
UPADHYAKASHA I.E. PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 AS PER
ANNEXURE-D MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED.
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 Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grampanchayat,
Kollur, Sedam Taluk, Kalaburagi District have filed this writ
petition challenging a notice dated 17.12.2024 and 22.01.2025
issued by respondent No.2 proposing a meeting on 07.01.2025
and 06.02.2025 to consider a 'motion of no confidence' moved
by the members of the Grampanchayat.
2. The petitioners contend that they were elected as
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Panchayat at the election
held on 26.08.2023. They contend that 11 members of the
Panchayat moved a 'motion of no confidence' by submitting an
undated representation in Form No.1. The respondent No.2
issued a notice dated 17.12.2024 fixing a meeting of the
members on 07.01.2025. However, the meeting could not be
held on 07.01.2025. The respondent No.2 then issued another
notice dated 22.01.2025 convening a meeting of the members
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
on 06.02.2025. The petitioners being aggrieved by the notices
dated 17.12.2024 and 22.01.2025 are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that
respondent No.2 was bound to conduct a meeting on
07.01.2025 and if the same was not held on the said day, the
proceedings abated and the members could have initiated fresh
steps by submitting a fresh application in Form No.1. He
contends that the respondent No.2 on his own issued another
notice dated 22.01.2025 convening a meeting of the Members
on 06.02.2025. He therefore contends that respondent No.2
has acted beyond his powers to convene a meeting of the
members of the panchayat. He contends that if a statute
prescribes that a particular act has to be done in a particular
manner, it should be done in that manner alone or not at all.
He contends that since the consequence of a 'motion of no
confidence' was the removal of the petitioners, every bit of
procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha
and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994
(henceforth referred to as the Rules of 1994) has to be strictly
followed. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Full
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
Bench of this Court in the case of C.Puttaswamy and others
vs. Prema and others1 as well as the judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Shankargouda and others
vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Panchayat Raj and
others2.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that the meeting dated 07.01.2025 could
not be held since police bandobusth could not be provided at
the meeting as there was a likelihood of a law and order
situation. Hence, respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to conduct
a further meeting on 06.02.2024. He submits that the
petitioners are not prejudiced in any manner whatsoever and
therefore the meeting could be held on 07.02.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the private respondents
also supported the contentions of the learned Additional
Government Advocate and submitted that the private
respondents cannot be held responsible for a mistake
committed by respondent No.2 and that a meeting of 'no
confidence' has to be proceeded with.
AIR 1992 KAR 356
ILR 2022 KAR 3691
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
6. The members of a Panchayat are entitled to move a
motion of 'no confidence' and is a statutory right which is
recognized under Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The procedure for moving a 'no
confidence motion' is prescribed under the Rules of 1994.
7. As per the rules, a written notice of the intention to
make a motion under Section 49(1) of the Act shall be in Form
No.1 and shall be signed by not less than 1/3rd of total number
of the members. Two members who have signed Form No.1
should deliver Form No.1 in person to the concerned Assistant
Commissioner. Later the Assistant Commissioner shall convene
a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office
of the Grampanchayat on the date fixed by him which shall not
be later than 30 days from the date on which Form No.1 is
filed. Before doing so he is bound to give 15 days clear notice
of the meeting to the Members. The quorum prescribed for a
meeting shall be two-thirds of the total members of
grampanchayat. Under Rule 3 sub-rule (5), a meeting
convened for the purpose of considering the motion of "no
confidence" shall not "for any reason" be adjourned. If there is
no quorum within one hour after the time fixed for meeting, the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
meeting shall stand dissolved and notice in Form No.1 shall
lapse. There is no provision in the Rules, 1994 for the
respondent No.2 to postpone the meeting that was supposed to
be held on 07.01.2025. It is not known how the respondent
No.2 has exercised power to convene a fresh meeting beyond
the 30 days period prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Rules
1994. Therefore, the impugned notice issued by respondent
No.2 fixing a meeting of the Members on 06.02.2025 falls foul
of the Rules 1994 and hence, is liable to be quashed. Hence,
the following :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned notices dated 17.12.2024 and
22.01.2025 issued by respondent No.2
proposing to hold a meeting of the members of
the Panchayat on 06.02.2025 to consider a
motion of 'no confidence' against the
petitioners is quashed.
iii) It is however open for the private respondents
or the members of the Grampanchayat to
move a fresh representation in accordance with
law.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:797
iv) If representation is filed in Form No.1, the
respondent No.3 shall conduct the proceedings
strictly in accordance with the Rules, 1994,
failing which he shall be held personally
responsible for all costs and consequences.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SN
CT:SI
