Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagaraju B N vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
WP No. 3402 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3402 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NAGARAJU B N
S/O NANJUNDALAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BILI DEVALAYA,
KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ
MS BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
3RD GATE, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA 560001
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
WP No. 3402 of 2025
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMKUR-572 101.
3. BILI DEVALAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
(GRAM PANCHAYAT
ESTABLISHED UNDER
GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT)
4. SMT CHNADRAMMA
W/O MUDDLAIAH
AGED MAJOR
BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
5. SRI. PRAKASH.B.R
S/O RANGASWAMALAH
AGED MAJOR
BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
6. SRI.B.S.ANANDASWAMY
S/O SIDDGANGALAH, AGED MAJOR
BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
7. SMT. ISHRATUNISHA
S/O RIZWAN PASHA
AGED MAJOR
BOORALINGANAPALLYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
WP No. 3402 of 2025
8. SRI. DEWARAJU.D.R
S/O RANGASWAMAIAH
AGED MAJOR
BOORALINGANAPALLYA, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
9. SMT.K.B.CHANDRAPRABHA
W/O S.N.SHEKAR
AGED MAJOR
KENKERE, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
10. SMT.MAHADEWAMMA
W/O VENKATARANGAIAH
AGED MAJOR
MUTHUGADAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
11. SMT GANGAMMA
W/O RANGASWAMY.C.R
AGED MAJOR
MUTHUGADAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
12. SRI.BOREGOWDA.C.B
S/O BETTAIAH, AGED MAJOR
BOTTNAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-572 131.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. PUNITH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
SRI. K VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 TO R12)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
WP No. 3402 of 2025
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTICE DTD. 17.01.2025 BEARING
NO.EJ¯ïJ£ï(PÀÄ):¹Dgï:39/24-25 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION/ R-2
CONVENING MEETING OF NO CONFIDENCE MOTION
AGAINST PETITIONER / PRESIDENT OF BILL DEVALAYA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT / R-3 ON 06.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petition is filed seeking quashing of the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening a
special meeting on 06.02.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
as required under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat)
Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules'), a fifteen days
clear notice from the date of service of notice on the
petitioner has not been given and the petitioner was
only served of the notice on 23.01.2025 i.e., within
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
fifteen days from the date of the proposed meeting
and hence, the proceedings are illegal.
3. He places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P. No.101890 of 20221 to
support his argument.
4. The learned counsel who appears on behalf of the
members produces records to indicate that the notice
of the meeting was in fact brought to the notice of
the petitioner and since he refused the notice, a
mahazar was drawn and the notice was affixed on his
house and therefore, the argument that there was no
clear fifteen days notice is incorrect. He also
produces photographs to indicate that the notice was
affixed on the petitioner's house.
5. In my view, the argument of the petitioner that there
was no fifteen days clear notice from the date of
service of notice to him cannot be accepted.
Smt.Sharadabai vs. The State of Karnataka, WP No.101890 of 2022 (Dharwad
Bench), DD: 31.05.2022, Coram: Hon'ble Justice R.Devdas
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
6. This Court, while interpreting Rule 3(2)2 of the
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence
against Adhyaksha an Upadhyaksha of Gram
Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules') in
W.P. No.30979 of 20243, has categorically held that
fifteen days clear notice contemplated under the
Rules, is fifteen days notice from the date of the
notice of the Assistant Commissioner and not from
the date of service of notice to the members.
7. It may also be pertinent to state here that if the
Assistant Commissioner is required first to serve the
2 Rule 3(2) of the Rules reads as follows-
3. Motion of No-confidence.--(1) x x x
(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. The Assistant commissioner shall make sure that the
allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a
report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer:
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."
Mrs.Bhagyamma vs. The state of Karnataka and others, WP
No.30979/2024, DD: 01.02.2025, Coram: Justice Sanjay Gowda
NC: 2025:KHC:5301
notice and thereafter fix a date, it is obvious that he
would not be able to fix a date at all, fundamentally
because, he has to ensure that the entire process of
convening a meeting is concluded within one month
from the date he receives the notice.
8. Rule 3(2) of the Rules categorically states that he
only has to give a notice of the proposed meeting
and the fifteen days clear notice contemplated
therein would obviously be from the date of the
notice and not from the date of service of notice.
9. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the
writ petition and the petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
