Karnataka High Court
Sharda W/O Ramesh N vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
WP No. 101197 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
R
WRIT PETITION NO. 101197 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHARDA W/O. RAMESH N.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF
SOMASAMUDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH,
TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOURISH SUBHASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY,
RURAL AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-560001.
GIRIJA A 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BYAHATTI
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BENCH
SOMASAMUDRA GRAM PANCHAYT,
TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARI-583101.
5. M. MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARI-583101.
6. KENCHAPPA S/O. KANAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KURAGODU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
WP No. 101197 of 2025
7. SMT. LAKSHMI S/O. KANAKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
8. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. BHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
9. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. ISHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
10. RAJESHWARI W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
11. SMT. SRIDEVI W/O. BASANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
12. SMT. MANJULA W/O. B.N. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
13. SMT. GURUVAR SIDDALINGAMMA
W/O. BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
14. SMT. UMA W/O. KUMARASWAMI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
15. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. JALRAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
WP No. 101197 of 2025
16. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. KUMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
17. T. RAJESH W/O. IRANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
18. SMT. V. LAKSHMI W/O. MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER,
R/O. GRAM PANCHAYAT, SOMASAMUDRA,
TQ: KARAGOUDU, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6-18)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE IN NO.SAM/KAM/CHUNVANE/C«±Áé¸/À ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ
/2024-25 DATED 27-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE
COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; ANY
OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT WHICH THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or
direction to quash the impugned notice in
No.Sam/Kam/Chunvane/C«±Áé¸À/ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ
/2024-25 dated 27-01-2025 issued by the 3rd
respondent, the copy of which has been
produced at Annexure-A;
b) Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in
the facts and circumstances of the case may
kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner, in
the ends of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by
respondent No.3 Assistant Commissioner dated
27.01.2025 fixing the meeting to be held on
19.02.2025 at 11:00 am in the office of the Gram
Panchayat for considering the motion for no
confidence against the petitioner, who is the
Adhyaksha of the Somasamudra Gram Panchayat,
Kurugodu Taluk, Bellary District.
3. The submission of Sri. Gourish Subhash
Khashampur, learned Counsel for the petitioner is
that;
3.1. A requisition to the Assistant Commissioner
having been submitted on 24.01.2025 at
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
Annexure-C, the notice fixing the date of
meeting could not have been issued on
27.01.2025, within 3 days from the
submission of the requisition notice and this,
he submits is contrary to the mandatory
requirement under the first provisio to Sub-
section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka
Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993
('the Act of 1993', for short).
3.2. Once a requisition is submitted to the
Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant
Commissioner has to wait for 10 days and
thereafter issue notice to the Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha, as the case may be.
3.3. In terms of the first proviso to Sub-section(1)
of Section 49 of the Act of 1993, no such
resolution shall be moved unless a notice of
the resolution signed by not less than one-half
of the total number of members and at least
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
10 days notice has been given of the intention
to move the resolution.
3.4. There is ambiguity in the first proviso
inasmuch as it is not mentioned as to whom
the notice of 10 days has to be given, for what
purpose, and as such, the rights of the
petitioner, who is Adhyaksha, against whom a
motion of no confidence is moved, will be
adversely affected, without this ambiguity
being laid at rest.
3.5. The Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.10.2022 in the case of
Smt.Rajamma W/o. Balanjaneya Vs. The
State of Karnataka and Others1, has also
come to a conclusion that there is some
ambiguity in the said provision.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
3.6. He also relies on the interim orders dated
11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 passed in
W.A.No.200026/2025. The Division Bench has
stayed the order of the Single Bench in Writ
Petition No.102077/2022, on the ground that
10 days notice is required to be issued in
terms of the first proviso to Subsection(1) of
Section 49 of the Act of 1993.
4. Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA, would submit
that;
4.1. There is no ambiguity as such. The said issue
has been referred to two Full Benches and
both the Full Benches have categorically held
that the requirement of issuing 10 days notice
is directory and not Mandatory.
4.2. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of
the Full Bench in the case of Shankargouda
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors2,
more particularly paragraphs 17 and 18
thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
17. If we hypothetically consider a situation
when the members submit Form-I on
01.08.2022 and if the Assistant
Commissioner has to wait, "at least for
clear ten days to act, then he has to
issue a notice to the members in Form-
II on 12.08.2022 and if fifteen clear
days notice to the members ends on
27.08.2022, then the meeting can be
held on 28.08.2022, which would be
within 30 days from the date of Form-I.
This is however subject to the condition
that the notice to all the members are
served on 12.08.2022 itself, which may
or may not happen. If there is a delay
of even two days in service of the
notice to the members in Form-II, the
meeting cannot be held as that would
overshoot the thirty days stipulated
under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the
Rules of 1994. Therefore, in order to
avert the notice being dubbed illegal,
the Assistant Commissioner would
within ten days ascertain the details of
the members who would have signed
Form-I and whether all the members
are residing within the Grama
Panchayat etc. He would have to fix the
date of meeting on such date which
ILR 2022 KAR 3691
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
does not clash with any of his other
official commitments, as he has to
preside over the meeting. In that
circumstance, he need not wait for ten
days to expire to take action to issue
notice to convene a meeting. He may,
if satisfied initiate the process by
issuing the notice in Form-II and fix a
date of the meeting of the members at
his convenience, even before the expiry
of ten days. In this sense, the first
proviso to Section 49 becomes
directory and this understanding fairly
grinds the uneven edges in the
machination of the process.
18. Therefore, we are of considered opinion
that the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of M.
PUTTEGOWDA, supra, is just and
proper and does not require any re-
consideration.
4.3. He has also relied upon one more judgment of
the full bench in the case of Smt.
Hanamavva W/O Hulappa Hirekurabar Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner Bagalkot3,
more particularly paragraphs 17 and 18
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
ILR 2022 KAR 4953
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
"17. In so far as the contention that in
respect of Taluk and Zilla Panchayath,
a notice of no confidence has to be first
given to Adhyaksha and therefore a
similar analogy has to be drawn in
respect of a Grama Panchayath, the
same is misplaced for more reason the
one. The first reason is that the
provisions contained in Section 140 and
179 provide for such a procedure. The
second reason is that the members to
Taluk and Zilla Panchayath are
promoted by political parties and are
therefore bound by defection rules etc.
The third reason is that an Adyaksha or
Upadhyaksha of a Taluk or Zilla
Panchayath, subject to the reservation
roster, is elected by the members
having a major strength in the house.
Therefore, it is that major political
party that can call the shots by moving
a vote of no confidence. Hence this
procedure cannot be applied to Grama
Panchayaths where membership to the
panchayath is not based on political
considerations but the Adyaksha or
Upadhyaksha are elected by the
members, who have no political
lineage. Hence we answer the reference
and hold that the "ten days clear
notice" found in first proviso to Section
49 of the Act, 1993 has to be given to
the Assistant Commissioner which is
mandatory and not to the Adhyaksha of
the Grama Panchayat.
18. Turning to the next leg of the reference
namely whether the Assistant
Commissioner has to wait for the expiry
of ten days Before issuing a notice to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
the members to convene a meeting of
the members to consider the motion of
no confidence, this very Bench in the
case of SHANKARGOUDA AND OTHERS
vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS, has held that the Assistant
Commissioner need not wait for ten
days and that the law declared by the
Division Bench of this Court in
M.PUTTEGOWDA (supra), does not
require any reconsideration."
4.4. By relying on the above judgments, he
submits that the reference to 10 days clear
notice found in the first proviso to Sub-
section(1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 has
to be given to the Assistant Commissioner and
not to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, the
further finding in both the matters is that the
Assistant Commissioner need not wait for 10
days before issuing a notice to convene a
meeting to consider the no-confidence motion,
and the said findings of the Full Benches would
be binding on this Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
4.5. In the present case, the notice having been
issued within three days is in accordance with
the dicta laid down by the Full Benches in both
the above matters.
4.6. As such, he submits that no grounds having
been made out, the above petition requires to
be dismissed.
5. Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.5 to 18, submits that this is third
time that respondents No.5 to 18 are moving the
motion for no confidence. On the first occasion, since
the PDO had affixed the signature and stamp, the
notice came to be quashed, on the second occasion,
15 days clear notice had not been issued by the
Assistant Commissioner, leading to the quashing of
the notice and now, on the third occasion, this issue
has been raised. He submits that respondents No.5
to 18 have been unable to exercise their democratic
rights in moving the no-confidence motion against
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
the Adhyaksha, who has been functioning as
Adhyaksha for the last more than 1 ½ years.
6. Heard Sri. Gourish Subhash Khashampur, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath,
learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri. Shivaraj
Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and
Sri. Girish V. Bhat, learned counsel for respondents
No.5 and 6 to 18. Perused the papers.
7. The short question that would arise for consideration
is,
"Whether a notice of 10 clear days is
required to be furnished by
requisitionists to the Assistant
Commissioner and whether the
Assistant Commissioner is required to
wait for 10 day after receipt of the
requisition notice before issuing a
notice under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of
the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion
of No-Confidence against the Adyaksha
and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayath)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
Rules, 1994 ('Rules, 1994', for short)
in Form No.2?
8. In the present case, the requisition notice in Form
No.1 of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 had
been issued on 24.01.2025 and received by the
Assistant Commissioner on the same day. Notice in
Form No.2 of Sub-rule(1) of Rule 3 of the Rules,
1994 came to be issued to the petitioner on
27.01.2025, and on that basis, it is contended that
there is no gap of 10 days from the date on which
the requisition notice was submitted to the date on
which the Assistant Commissioner issued notice in
Form No.2.
9. The Full Bench of this court in Shankargouda's case
(supra), in the aforesaid extracted para 17, has come
to the categorical conclusion that the requirement of
issuing notice for 10 days is only directory in nature.
The Full Bench having come to a conclusion that the
Assistant Commissioner would have to fix a date of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
meeting on such a date which does not clash with
any of his other official commitments, as he has to
preside over the meeting has held that the Assistant
commissioner shall fix a date for the meeting by
giving 15 clear days notice to all concerned. It is this
15 days notice to hold a meeting that has been held
to be mandatory and the 10 day period is held to be
directory.
10. This finding of the Shankaragouda's case (supra)
was reiterated by the very same Full Bench while
considering Hanamavva's case. The Full Bench
again has held that the Assistant Commissioner need
not wait for the expiry of 10 days before issuing
notice to the members to convene a meeting to
consider the motion of no confidence.
11. As such, two Full Benches have arrived at the
categorical conclusion that the Assistant
Commissioner need not wait for 10 days before
issuing notice to the members for the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
commencement of the meeting, I am bound by the
said orders of the Full Benches.
12. Therefore, the contention of Sri.Gourish Subhash,
Khashampur learned counsel for the petitioner, that
the Assistant Commissioner having issued the
impugned notice on 27.01.2025 at Annexure-A,
without waiting for 10 days is a violation of the
mandatory requirement under proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 is not
sustainable.
13. Reference is also made to the interim order passed in
W.A.No.200026/2025, In view of the findings made
in the final judgments of two Full Benches, I am of
the considered opinion that the interim orders will
not aid the case of the petitioner, when the Full
Benched have held to the contrary.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3194
14. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made
out, the petition stands dismissed, the meeting as
scheduled shall go on.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
