Karnataka High Court
Sabanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
WA No.200022 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200022 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. SABANNA
S/O BHIMANNA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: PRESIDENT OF GRAM
PANCHAYATR MUNDARGI,
R/O: MUNDARGI VILLAGE,
TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDING - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI, DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADGIRI, TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
WA No.200022 of 2025
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO)
MUNDARGA GRAM PANCHAYAT
TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.
5. SMT. GANGIBAI
W/O CHANDRAM,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
6. SRIMATI JAGADEVAMMA
W/O RABINDRA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
7. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O MALLANNA
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
8. MRS. SIVAKANTHAMMA
W/O MANAMANTA
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
9. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O SABAIAH
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
10. MRS. LAKSHMI
W/O SABANNA
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
11. SMT. LALITA
D/O HARISHCHANDRA
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
12. SMT. KAMALBAI
W/O GOPAL
AGE: 37 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
WA No.200022 of 2025
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
13. SRI MONAPPA
S/O BASANNA
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
14. SMT. HANAMAVVA
W/O LAKSHMANA
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
15. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
16. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O MONAIAH
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
17. SRI SOMANNA GOWDA
S/O NAGANNA GOWDA
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
18. SRI MAREPPA
S/O MALLAREDDY
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
19. SRI NARASAPPA
S/O TAMMANNA
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
20. SRI SANGAMMA
W/O RAMESH
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
WA No.200022 of 2025
21. SRI CHANDRAM
S/O HEERAYA
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRI AND MEMBER OF GP
R5 TO R21 ARE R/O MUNDARAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: & DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.
22. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TALUKA PANCHAYAT
TQ: & DIST YADGIRI - 585 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R21;
V/O DATED 12.02.2025 NOTICE TO R4 & R22 IS WAIVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.203874/2024 AND TO PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
Learned counsel Sri Ganesh Naik undertakes to
appear for respondent Nos.5 to 21.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
Service of notice insofar as respondent Nos.4 and 22
is waived for the present as order is being passed sending
back the proceedings to the learned Single Judge.
The parties are referred to by their rank in the writ
petition for the sake of convenience.
The petitioner had challenged the notice of the
Assistant Commissioner fixing the date for considering the
'motion of no confidence' on various grounds including that
there was no 15 days' clear notice as mandatory under
Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-
Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha), Rules,
1994.
2. A perusal of the grounds raised in the petition
would refer to said ground as reiterated in the present
proceedings. It is submitted that during the pendency of
the proceedings, interim order passed to the effect that
proceedings in the 'motion of no confidence' would be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The interim
order passed on 31.12.2024 reads as follows:
"No confidence motion scheduled to be held in
01.01.2025 in the instant case shall be subject to
result of the writ petition."
3. It is further submitted that eventually the
'motion of no confidence' was passed and subsequently
the matter was listed before the Court. The Court has
disposed off the writ petition as per order dated
16.01.2025, which reads as follows:
"The petitioner has challenged a notice of 'no
confidence motion' that was held on 01.01.2025.
Since 'no confidence motion' was successfully passed
against the petitioner, this writ petition has become
infructuous. Hence, the same is dismissed.
In view of disposal of main petition,
I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration."
4. The said order has been assailed on the ground
that when the various grounds were raised in the writ
petition, an interim order was passed declaring that the
proceedings in the meeting to be held to consider the
'motion of no confidence' would be subject to the outcome
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
of the writ petition and subsequently when the 'motion of
no confidence' was passed, that by itself could not lead to
the petition having become infructuous as observed by the
learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.5 to 21 would submit that the petitioners themselves
did not press the petition after the 'motion of no
confidence' was passed and when the matter was listed
before the learned Single Judge. However, such assertion
is denied by counsel appearing for the petitioner. We are
not privy to the proceedings that led to the learned Single
Judge having passed an order declaring that the writ
petition has become infructuous.
6. Needless to state that once when the interim
order was passed declaring that the 'motion of no
confidence' and proceedings thereto would be subject to
the outcome of the petition, without adjudicating on the
petition and grounds raised, the question of dismissing the
petition as having become infructuous may not be
NC: 2025:KHC-K:994-DB
appropriate. Accordingly, we are of the view that there
has to be adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised
in the petition.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and matter is remitted to the
learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits.
Needless to state that no proceedings can be taken for
filling up of the vacancy that has arisen due to passing of
the 'motion of no confidence', till the validity of the notice
issued by the Assistant Commissioner is adjudicated in the
writ proceedings.
Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
CT-vk
