Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hanamanthareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
WP No. 200414 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200414 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANAMANTHAREDDY
S/O PAMPANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: ADHYAKSHA BENKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ. SEDAM DIST. KALABURAGI-585222
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
by SACHIN M.S BUILDING-560001.
Location: High
Court Of 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Karnataka KALABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE
OF ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER
SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222.
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO)
BENAKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222
5. SRI. SHIVALINGAREDDY
S/O MALLIKARJUNA REDDY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
WP No. 200414 of 2025
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
6. SRI. CHEERANJEEVIREDDY
S/O GOPALAREDDY PATIL,
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
7. SRI. RAMESHAREDDY S/O BASAREDDY
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
8. SMT. HABIBA BEGUM W/O HAMEEDAMIYA
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
9. SMT. BASAMMA W/O HANMANTH
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
10. SMT. LALITAMMA W/O AYYAPPA
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
11. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O HASANAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
12. SMT. KASHIBAI W/O ASHOKA
AGE: 31 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
13. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O HUSSAINAPPA
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
14. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT
ALL OF R/O BENAKANHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TQ. SEDAM, DIST. KALABURAGI-585222
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 AND R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
WP No. 200414 of 2025
IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FILE
NO.¸ÀA/PÀA/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀu/É 59/2024-25 DATED 30.01.2025 CALLING FOR
MEETING TO DISCUSS NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST
THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A
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, a president of Benkanhalli Grama
Panchayath is before this Court challenging the validity of
a notice dated 30.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.3
proposing a meeting of the members of panchayat to
consider a motion of no confidence on 14.02.2025.
2. The petitioner contends that he was elected as
a president of panchayat on 01.08.2023. The respondent
Nos.5 to 14 being the members of the panchayat
submitted a representation in Form No.1 before the
respondent No.1 on 17.01.2025 expressing lack of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
confidence in the petitioner. The respondent No.3 issued a
notice on 30.01.2025 convening a meeting of the
members on 14.02.2025. The petitioner is therefore before
this Court challenging the validity of the notice.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the respondent No.3 was bound to issue a notice
within 10 days from the date of receipt of representation
prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchyat Raj
(No Confidence Motion against 'Adyaksha' or Upadyksha'),
Rules 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules 1994' for
short) but the notice is dated 30.01.2025 and the meeting
is fixed on 14.02.2025. He has also relied upon the
judgment of a full bench of this Court in the case of
Shankargouda Vs. State of Karnataka and others
[ILR 22 KAR 3691], in support of the contention that the
ten days period is mandatory, in so far as it relates to
issuing a notice by the respondent No.3. Therefore, he
contends that the meeting is fixed on the 15th day from
the date of notice and hence is violative of Rule 3(2) of the
Rules, 1994. In support of his contention, he relied upon
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
the judgment of full bench of this Court in C.
Puttaswamy, Etc., Vs. Smt. Prema, Etc., [AIR 1992
KAR 356]. Thus, he contends that the impugned notice is
invalid and consequently no confidence motion is bound to
lapse.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on
the other hand, contended that the representation was
submitted by the members on 17.01.2025 and that notice
was issued on 30.01.2025 proposing a meeting on
14.02.2025. He submits that the entire process is fixed
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
representation filed by the members and hence, even if
there are some irregularities, the same does not prejudice
the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
5. The learned counsel for the private respondents
voiced the submission made by learned Additional
Government Advocate.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
6. I have considered the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for
the private respondents.
7. Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act,
1993 provides for expressing lack of confidence in an
'Adyaksha' or Upadyksha' by the members. The Rules
1994 are framed in order to facilitate such no confidence
motions. The full bench of this Court in the case of C.
Puttaswamy referred supra, held that the Rules
prescribed for no confidence is a complete code in itself
and therefore any violation of the Rules, 1994, would
render the whole process invalid.
8. In the case on hand, though members of the
panchayat had submitted a representation on 17.01.2025,
giving 10 days notice to the respondent No.3 to fix a date
of no confidence, the respondent No.3 without issuing a
notice within the 10 days period, has slept over the notice
and issued a notice on 30.01.2025. The full bench of this
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
Court in the case of Shankargouda supra has considered
the question whether the 10 days period is mandatory or
not and has held that it is mandatory when it relates to
issuing a notice to the members to convene a meeting of
no confidence.
9. The respondent No.3 was also bound to issue
15 days clear notice to all the members. Contrarily the
meeting is fixed on the 15th day from the date of issuing
the notice which again contravenes Rules 3(2) of Rules,
1994. It was in similar circumstances that the full bench of
this Court in the case of C. Puttaswamy had held that
violation of the Rules requiring prior notice to the
members would render the whole process invalid.
10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned notice dated 30.01.2025 issued
by the respondent No.3 is quashed.
11. However, it is always open for the private
respondents to take out fresh proceedings in accordance
with law. If the private respondents move a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1038
representation, the respondent No.3 shall take out
proceedings in strict compliance with Rules 1994, failing
which, he shall be responsible for all costs and
consequences.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
HJ
CT:SI
