Karnataka High Court
Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
WP No. 200347 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200347 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SIDDAPPA
S/O HANAMANTARAYA HIRE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: EX. PRESIDENT OF
GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR,
R/O ROUNDAL BANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE
Digitally signed BY ITS SECRETARY-560001.
by SACHIN
2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER
Location: High CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
Court Of BANGALORE-560052.
Karnataka
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
5. THE ELECTION OFFICER/
DESIGNATED OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
WP No. 200347 of 2025
6. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
7. SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O RAJESH,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
8. SMT. HANUMAVVA
W/O RANGAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
9. SRI. SANGANABASAPPA
S/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
10. SRI. YENKAPPA
S/O MAHADEVI,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
11. SRI. DEVAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA BACHALE,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
12. SRI. MALAPPA
S/O AMATEPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
WP No. 200347 of 2025
13. SMT. GADDEVVA
W/O SANGAPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
14. SRI. RAYAPPA
S/O GADDEPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
15. SMT. GADDEMMA
W/O MALLAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
16. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O YENKAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
17. SMT. SHANKREMMA
W/O GADDEPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER
R/O CHITTAPUR, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 TO C/ R15 AND R16 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REQUISITION DATED
21.01.2025 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 17 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED
23.01.2025 IN FORM-II VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
WP No. 200347 of 2025
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 petitioner being the President of Gram
Panchayat, Chittapur, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District, is
before this Court challenging a notice dated 23.01.2025
issued by the respondent No.4 proposing a meeting of the
members of the Panchayat on 11.02.2025 to consider a
motion of no-confidence.
2. The petitioner contends that he was elected as
a President of the panchayat on 01.08.2023. He contended
that though he served the panchayat with all humility and
integrity, some disgruntled members of the panchayat,
had submitted a representation on 21.01.2025 requesting
the respondent No.4 to convene a meeting of no-
confidence. However, the respondent No.6, who had no
role to play in the proceedings of no-confidence, had made
endorsements on the representation seeming as if the
representation was first filed before the respondent No.6,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
who certified the signatures of the members. The
representation was thereafter placed before the
respondent No.4. He therefore, contends that the
impugned proceedings involving the respondent No.6 is
improper and not in compliance with the Karnataka
Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against the
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules
of 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994'). The
petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.203171/2024,
had quashed the notice reserving liberty to the members
to move a fresh representation. The petitioner therefore
prays that the impugned notice be set at naught.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above contentions and sought to quash the impugned
notice issued by the respondent No.4.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate submitted that mere certifying the signatures on
Form No.1 submitted by the members by the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
No.6 does not change the nature of the representation and
does not prejudice the President of the panchayat in any
manner and therefore, the impugned proceedings cannot
be set at naught. He contends that in the judgment relied
upon by the petitioner, the representation was submitted
to the Panchayat Development Officer, who is not
competent to receive the representation and therefore, in
that circumstance, this Court had allowed the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the private respondents
reiterated the submissions of the learned Additional
Government Advocate and submitted that the petitioner
was not prejudiced in any manner by mere certification of
the signatures by the respondent No.6. He submitted that
the representation was in fact placed before the
respondent No.4 in accordance with the Rules of 1994 and
therefore, there is no error warranting interference with
the impugned notice.
6. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned
counsel for respondent No.6.
7. A copy of Form No.1 filed by the members,
discloses that the same was first placed before the
Panchayat Development Officer, who verified the
signatures thereon and certified that the signatures
belonged to the members of the panchayat. Therefore, it
appears that the representation was placed before the
respondent No.6 and thereafter placed before the
respondent No.4. It is this procedure of the Panchayat
Development Officer that this Court took exception in
W.P.No.203171/2024 and held that the Panchayat
Development Officer has no role to play in the no-
confidence motion and therefore, he is not entitled to
make any entries on the Form No.1 and the only person,
who is entitled to do so is the Assistant Commissioner. In
that circumstance, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice of no-
confidence. However, it reserved right to the members to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:869
move a fresh motion for no-confidence. Therefore, the
facts in this case are quite similar to the facts in
W.P.No.203171/2024 and accordingly, the petitioner is
entitled to the same benefit that was given to the
petitioners in W.P.No.203171/2024.
8. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The
impugned notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the
respondent No.4 proposing to hold a meeting of no-
confidence against the petitioner on 11.02.2025 is
quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the private
respondents to take out a fresh motion for no-confidence
against the petitioner.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of
ten days from today.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
