Karnataka High Court
Sri.Virupakshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
WP No. 659 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 659 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VIRUPAKSHI
S/O.LATE.DODDALAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ADHAYKSHA,
TUMKURLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TUMKURLAHALLI,
MOLAKALMURU,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALARAJ A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
Digitally AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
signed by DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1.
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HIGH OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
3. THE TUMKURLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH,
TUMKURLAHALLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CUM SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
WP No. 659 of 2025
4. SMT.ANJINAMMA,
W/O.T.H.OBANNA, MAJOR.
5. SMT.SHAKUNTALAMMA,
W/O. THIPPESWAMY, MAJOR.
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O.OBANNA, MAJOR.
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O. THIPPESWAMY, MAJOR.
8. SMT. MAMATHA,
W/O.CHANDRANNA, MAJOR.
9. SMT.PAPAMMA,
W/O.K.O.CHANNAPPA, MAJOR.
10. SMT.SANGAMMA G.,
W/O.MEGHARAJ, MAJOR.
11. SMT ANUSUAYAMMA T S
W/OLATE HEMMANNA MAJOR
12. SMT BHAGYAMMA
W/O JAGALURAIAH
MAJOR,
13. SMT LASUMAKKA
W/O ERANNA MAJOR
14. SMT BASAMMA
W/O NARAGAIAH MAJOR
15. SRI NAGARAJU
W/O KALLEEL PALAIAH MAJOR
16. SRI OBALESH
S/O M THIPPESWAMY MAJOR
17. SRI O CHIKKOBANNAHALLI KARIBASAPPA
S/O OBAIAH MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
WP No. 659 of 2025
18. SRI H M NAGABHUSHANA
W/O HIREHALLI MUTTAPPA MAJOR
19. SRI OBANNA
S/O BASAIAH MAJOR
20. SRI MALLESH
S/O H OBAIAH MAJOR
21. SRI JANGAMA KAMAIAH
S/O KAMAIAH MAJOR
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
TUMUKURLAHALLI
GRAM PANCHAYATH,
TUMUKURLAHALLI VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577536.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR
C/R-16, 17 & 19)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
CHUNAVANE/CR/142/2024-25 DTD 23.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G, ETC
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
WP No. 659 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
1. A requisition was given by eighteen (18) members of
the Gram Panchayat proposing to the Assistant
Commissioner stating that they intend to move a
motion of No-confidence against the petitioner.
2. The Assistant Commissioner acted upon the said
requisition and issued a notice to all the members
including the petitioner.
3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner, by which he
had convened a meeting on 16.01.2025 for
considering the proposed motion of No-confidence.
4. This Court by an order dated 13.01.2025 permitted
the meeting scheduled to be conducted on
16.01.2025 to go on, but made it clear that the
result of the said meeting would be subject to the
result of the Writ Petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
5. Pursuant to the said order, the meeting was
conducted on 16.01.2025, wherein the motion of No-
confidence was successfully passed against the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
procedure prescribed under the Rules has not been
followed in as much as the petitioner was not served
with a copy of the proposed motion of No-confidence,
as required under the Rules, and therefore, the
entire proceedings are illegal.
7. Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat
Raj (Motion of No confidence against Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994
(Rules) reads as follows-
"3. Motion of No-confidence :-
(1) A written notice of intention to make the
motion under the proviso to S.49 OF THE
Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 shall be
in Form I signed by not less than one-third
of the total number of members together
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
with a copy of the proposed motion shall be
delivered in person by any two of the
members signing the notice to the Assistant
Commissioner.
(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:
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."
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
8. As could be seen from Rule 3(1) of the Rules, it is
the requisition of the members which is required to
be accompanied with the copy of the proposed
motion and this is required to be delivered in-person
to any of the two members to the Assistant
Commissioner.
9. Sub-rule (2), however does not indicate either
directly or indirectly that the copy of the proposed
motion should once again be furnished to the
members by the Assistant Commissioner. In fact, a
perusal of Form-II would indicate that the notice to
be issued by the Assistant Commissioner was only to
inform the members that the meeting was being
convened to consider the motion of No-confidence
specifying the date of the said meeting. If Rule 3(2)
and Form-II are read together, it is obvious that the
copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence need
not be issued to all the members by the Assistant
Commissioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:6035
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought
to place reliance on the judgment rendered by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Mallamma1 to
contend that the copy of the proposed motion of No-
confidence shall also be furnished to the petitioner.
11. It is stated that in the said decision neither Rule 3(2)
nor Form-II has been considered and the Court was
only considering Rule 3(1) of the Rules. I am,
therefore, of the view that the said decision can be of
no avail to the petitioner. I find no grounds to
entertain this Writ Petition. Writ Petition is,
therefore, dismissed.
12. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
Mallamma v. State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Panchayath Raj Department and
Others, ILR KAR 2002 4253
