Karnataka High Court
Santosh G Chanagonda vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
WP No. 203931 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203931 OF 2024 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANTOSH G. CHANAGONDA,
S/O. SRI GURANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF INGALGI VILLAGE,
SINDAGI TQ.
DIST. BIJAPUR (VIJAYAPURA).
STATE KARNATAKA-586 128
PRESIDENT OF HARANAL VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
DEVARAHIPPARAGI TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASANNA MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. ANNARAYA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
AND:
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DC OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
IND SUB-DIVISION, IND TALUK,
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
WP No. 203931 of 2024
4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, (PDO)
HARANAL (PA) VILLAGE PANCHAYATH,
SINDAGI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.
5. SHIVANAND CHANABASAPPA YATAGERI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HARNAL TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
6. DUNDAMMA W/O PRABHUGOUDA HADNUR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O HARNAL TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
7. VIJAYALAXMI S. BIRADAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O HARNAL TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
8. SIDAPPA S/O PARAMAPPA HIREKURBAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HARNAL TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
9. SUSHMA W/O NANDAPPA SARWAD,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O HARNAL TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
10. BHIMAPPA S/O ERAPPA BHANDARI,,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HARNAL, TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
11. SURESH S/O RAMANNGOUDA AMBALANUR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O INGALAGI TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
12. SUJNANI W/O MALAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O INGALAGI TQ. DEVAR HIPPARGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
WP No. 203931 of 2024
DIST. VIJAYAPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R12)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ISSUED NOTICE BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.12.2024 BEARING NO.
UÁæ.¥ÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀu:É C«:¹Dgï:11/2024-25 ANNEXURE-D. II) ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT OF DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS
NOT TO INITIATED ANY PROCEEDING TILL THE TENURE
COMPETITION TILL 5 YEARS PERIOD.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The president of Haranal Gram Panchayat, Devara
Hipparagi Taluk, Vijayapura district has filed this petition
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
challenging the notice dated 17.12.2024 issued by
respondent No.3 scheduling a meeting of the members of
Panchayat on 03.01.2025 to consider a motion of no
confidence.
2. The petitioner contends that he was elected as
the president of Gram Panchayat, Haranal at the elections
held on 31.07.2023. The Haranal Gram Panchayat is
comprised of 11 members. The petitioner contends that
certain inimically ill-disposed members hatched an evil
plan to move a motion of no confidence against the
petitioner, even though the petitioner had been duly
executing the works of the Panchayat. The members
submitted a representation in Form No.1 to respondent
No.3 on 06.12.2024 expressing lack of confidence in the
petitioner and requested him to convene a meeting. Based
on the said representation, respondent No.3 issued a
notice dated 17.12.2024 proposing to conduct a meeting
of the members on 03.01.2025. The petitioner contends
that this notice issued to him was in violation of Rule 3 of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion Of No-Confidence
Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha Of Grama
Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (herein after referred to as the
'Rules 1994'). He contends that the notice dated
17.12.2024 was served on the petitioner on 23.12.2024.
Therefore, he contends that there is no clear 15 days
notice as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1994.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner contends that the notice of the meeting was
served physically on the petitioner on 19.12.2024 and that
the petitioner acknowledged the same on a copy of the
notice. He invited the attention of this Court to the said
notice, where the petitioner had mentioned as follows:
"¹éÃPÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/12/2024 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ C«±Áé¸PÀ ÉÌ ªÀÄAqÀ£É
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É."
4. He therefore contends that the petitioner
received the notice of the meeting on 19.12.2024 and
since, the meeting was scheduled on 03.01.2025, there
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
was no clear 15 days notice, as prescribed under Rule 3(1)
of the Rules, 1994. Thus he contends that the impugned
notice falls foul of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994, in view of
the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of
C. Puttaswamy and etc. V/s Smt. Prema and etc.1
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits
that the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the
notice, but had not affixed the date 19.12.2024. He
contends that the copy of the notice was sent to the
Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) on 18.12.2024 and
according to the report of the PDO, the notice was served
on 18.12.2024 and hence, the notice is in strict
compliance of Rule 3 (1) of Rules, 1994, as there was
clear 15 days notice of the meeting. Thus, he contends
that there is no error in the procedure adopted by
respondent No.3 in holding the meeting on 03.01.2025.
1992 SCC Online Kar 74
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 reiterated
the above and contended that the words "¹éÃPÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:
19/12/2024 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ C«±Áé¸PÀ ÉÌ ªÀÄAqÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÄÀ ß ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £É."
is written by the petitioner on his copy, which is an
afterthought as the same is not endorsed on the notice
received by him, which is found in the file. He therefore
submits that the notice cannot be held to be served on the
petitioner on 19.12.2024, based on the assertion made by
the petitioner.
7. This Court had directed the learned Additional
Government Advocate to secure the file relating to no
confidence motion and the same is placed before me. The
file discloses that the petitioner had received a copy of the
notice, but had not marked the date on the notice.
However, what is written on the acknowledgment issued
by the petitioner reads as follows:
"¸Àzj
À £ÉÆÃn¸Àì£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ eÁj ªÀiÁrzÉ."
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
8. I have considered the submission of learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
No.4.
9. This Court in terms of the order dated
31.12.2024 held that the outcome of the meeting dated
03.01.2025 shall be subject to the result of this writ
petition. It is stated that the no confidence motion was
held successfully against the petitioner on 03.01.2025.
10. As per Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1994,
respondent No.3 is bound to issue 15 days clear notice to
all the members of the Panchayat of the intended meeting.
A Full Bench of this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy
(supra) held that the Rules, 1994 is a complete code and
has to be followed strictly. Therefore, respondent No.3 is
bound to comply the said procedure, failing which, the
notice of the meeting would lapse.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
11. In the case on hand, the notice dated
17.12.2024, was within 10 days (representation dated
06.12.2024) from the submission of the representation to
hold the no confidence meeting. A copy of this notice was
received by respondent No.4 on 18.12.2024. Respondent
No.4 has stated that the copy of this notice was served on
the petitioner and other members on 18.12.2024. There is
nothing to show that the notice was served on the
petitioner on 19.12.2024 or that any other member had
received the notice on 19.12.2024. None of the private
respondents or other members of the Panchayat have
claimed that the notice was served on them on
19.12.2024. Petitioner in the writ petition initially claimed
that the notice was served on him on 23.12.2024.
However, later he did a U-turn by claiming that the said
notice was served on him on 19.12.2024. In order to,
buttress his contention he relied on the entry made by him
on a copy of the notice, which was handed over to the
PDO as an acknowledgment of the service notice.
However, if the petitioner had made the said endorsement
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
on the acknowledgment that was handed over to the PDO,
the original copy of the said letter must have been in the
file. But, on perusal of the entire file, the original copy of
the said acknowledgment was not found. Therefore, the
claim of the petitioner that the notice was served on him
on 19.12.2024 is without any basis.
12. In the absence of any material to show that the
notice was served on the petitioner on 19.12.2024, the
contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that
it was served on 19.12.2024 does not merit consideration.
Consequently, it is held that the petitioner was granted 15
days clear notice of the meeting and hence, there is no
error in the procedure adopted by respondent No.3 in
convening the meeting on 03.01.2025.
13. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and the
same is dismissed.
14. Before parting, it is appropriate to direct the
Assistant Commissioner to henceforth ensure that the date
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:830
of service of notice is properly mentioned, so that these
kind of issues do not arise for consideration before the
Courts in future.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
