Karnataka High Court
Dr Deepika Lokesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
WA No. 174 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Dr. DEEPIKA LOKESH
W/O H. LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PRESIDENT OF BEGLIHOSALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
R/AT KALLANDUR VILLAGE
BEGLIHOSALLI POST
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by H 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
K HEMA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location:
High Court PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
of Karnataka RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
3. SRI.CHARANRAJ K.C.
MAJOR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
WA No. 174 of 2025
4. SMT VARALAKSHMI R.
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
5. SRI S NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN,
6. SMT BHAGYAMMA
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
7. SMT PARVATHAMMA
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
8. SMT NARAYANAMMA
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
9. SRI R RAGHU
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
10. SMT SARASWATHI K
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
11. SRI MANJUNATH K R
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
12. SRI M NAGESH
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,
13. SMT LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,
14. SRI SRINIASAPPA
MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
WA No. 174 of 2025
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,
15. SMT MANGALA C
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,.
16. SRI SRINIVASAPPA
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,
17. SMT CHANDANA A V
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN ,
RESPONDENT NOs.3 TO 17 ARE
MEMBERS OF BEGLIHOSALLI
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, G.A. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. V.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VENKAT REDDY C.M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R17)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED
RECORDS IN WP NO.33928/2024 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED
22/01/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.33928/2024, AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP FILED BY THE APPELLANT
IN WP NO.33928/2024.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
WA No. 174 of 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul S. Reddy for the
appellant-original petitioner, learned Government Advocate
Mr..K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Advocate
Mr..V. Srinivasa assisted by learned advocate Mr..C.M..Venkat
Reddy for respondent Nos.3 to 17.
2. The challenge in this appeal is addressed to the judgment
and order of learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2025, whereby the
writ petition came to be dismissed and the prayers made in the
petition came to be negatived.
3. The petitioner was aggrieved by a motion of no-confidence
moved by 15 members of the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the
motion moved with requisite majority of the members, the
Competent Authority-the Assistant Commissioner, convened a
special meeting. The petitioner called in question the said exercise,
by filing the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
4. Before learned Single Judge as well as this Court in appeal,
the solitary argument which was advanced by learned advocate for
the appellant was that before moving no-confidence motion, the
opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner.
The petitioner held the post of Adhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat.
5. Learned Single Judge has rightly observed in paragraph 6
that as per Rule 3(7) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994, the panchayat
would consider the motion of no-confidence without hearing any
debate. It is rightly observed that merely because a motion is
made, it cannot be treated to be an automatic stigma.
5.1 Learned Single Judge observed correctly further that reasons
given in the no-confidence motion could be merely the cause for
which the members intend to move a motion of no-confidence and
it will not require any inquiry or hearing to be given to the petitioner.
The motion of no-confidence is not a stigma attached in the sense
as understood in service jurisprudence. The submission is entirely
misconceived.
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
6. Learned advocate for the appellant sought to rely on Section
48 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
The said section deals with the resignation or removal of
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to provide in its Sub-section (4) that
before taking the action of removal, an opportunity should be
provided to Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, as the case may be.
The said provision is not applicable here inasmuch as it deals with
the situation of resignation or removal of Adhyaksha.
6.1 Conceptually, motion of no-confidence is entirely different
than removal, where no hearing would be required. Motion of no-
confidence is a democratic process, whereby Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha could be unseated by democratically elected body,
once he/she loses confidence of the members of the requisite
majority which may be statutorily prescribed in the provision
permitting the moving of the no-confidence.
7. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge is eminently
just, proper and legal, no interference is called for. The appeal is
meritless and it is accordingly dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:5185-DB
In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory
application that may be pending, would not survive and stands
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
PGG
