Karnataka High Court
Sevanti vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
WP No. 200091 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200091 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SEVANTI
W/O RAMESH JADHAV,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT GRAM PANCHYATH
MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
R/O. MALAGHAN TANDA MALAGHAN,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586121.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
by RENUKA
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
Location: High
Court Of M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Karnataka
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR SUB-DIVISION
1ST FLOOR MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KANAKADASA BADAVANE, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
WP No. 200091 of 2025
5. GRAM PANCHAYAT MALAGHAN,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586121.
6. LAXMI
W/O. VITTAPPA MADAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
7. ASHOK
S/O. SHIVAPPA NINGANOOR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
8. SUVARNA
W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KAMAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
9. RAVINDRA
S/O. LAXMAN KALGURKI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN
GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586121.
10. SURESH
S/O. HANAMANTAPPA VATHAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
11. PARASHURAM
S/O. SHANKREPPA GARASANGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
12. SAVITA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
WP No. 200091 of 2025
W/O. CHIDANAND ARAKERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
13. MALIYAPPA
S/O. KASAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
14. MAHADEVI
W/O. YAMANAPPA ALMATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
15. AKHANDAPPA
S/O. CHANNAPPA KORI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
16. MUTTAWWA
W/O. SUBHASH BANDIWADDAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT,
R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-
586121.
17. ALLABAKSHA HADIMANI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
18. PANDAPPA BIRADAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586121.
19. RUKMINI B BIRADAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
WP No. 200091 of 2025
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN, TQ. KOLAR, DIST.
VIJAYAPURA-586121.
20. SHEKANAJ
W/O. DHULESAB KUDAGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: MEMBER MALAGHAN GRAM
PANCHAYAT, R/O. MALAGHAN,
TQ. KOLAR, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF THE WRIT QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO. U羴A
À /ZÀÄ£Á/C«ªÀÄA/¹Dgï/37/2024-25
DATED 01.01.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3,
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 has challenged a notice issued by the
respondent No.3 proposing to hold a meeting on
18.01.2025 to consider the request of members of the
Gram Panchayat, Malaghan expressing no confidence in
the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
2. The petitioner is the President of Gram Panchayat,
Malaghan. Certain members of the said Gram Panchayat
submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 on
14.11.2024 requesting him to convene a meeting to
consider their lack of confidence in the petitioner.
Accordingly, the respondent No.3 had issued a notice
dated 25.11.2024 proposing to hold a meeting on 12.12.
2024. The petitioner challenged the said notice in WP
No.203487/2024 on the ground that the representation of
the members of Gram Panchayat was not submitted to
respondent No.3 directly, but, was submitted to the
Panchayat Development Officer, who forwarded it to the
respondent No.3. However, it was the case of the
members that the representation was submitted to
respondent No.3, but certain entries were made on the
representation by the Panchayat Development Officer. This
Court in terms of the order dated 17.12.2024 allowed the
writ petition and set aside the notice of the meeting, but,
granted liberty to the members of the Panchayat to take
out fresh proceedings in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules
1994 (herein after referred to as 'Rules 1994' for brevity).
Following this, 13 members of the Gram Panchayat
submitted a representation on 31.12.2024 before the
respondent No.3 and requested him to convene a meeting.
Accordingly, the respondent No.3 issued a notice dated
01.01.2025 proposing to hold a meeting on 18.01.2025.
Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner is before
this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the representation dated 31.12.2024 is also submitted
through the Panchayat Development Officer. He contended
that two members of the Panchayat, who had signed the
representation, did not appear before the Assistant
Commission and they did not submit the representation.
He also submitted that the respondent No.3 did not refer
to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in WP No.203487/2024. Therefore, he contends that
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
there is a violation of the procedure prescribed under the
Rules 1994. Thus, he contends that the impugned notice
proposing to hold the meeting to consider the no
confidence motion is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.7, who has entered caveat submits that the
representation was submitted to the respondent No.3 by
all the 13 members, who had signed the representation.
He submits that there is nothing on record to show that
these 13 members did not appear before respondent No.3.
He submits that there is also nothing to show that the
representation of the members was submitted to the PDO
or that the PDO had made any endorsement on the
representation. The signature found on the representation
dated 31.12.2024 was that of the Assistant Commissioner,
which made it clear that it was submitted to the Assistant
Commissioner by the members. Learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
3 supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.7.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for respondent No.7.
6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.203171/2024 took exception to the participation of the
Panchayat Development Officer in the matters of moving a
motion of no confidence by the members of the Panchayat
against the President of the Panchayat. This Court held
that the Panchayat Development Officer has no role to
play in the matters of consideration of a motion of no
confidence and consequently quashed the earlier
representation submitted by the members, who had
moved the no confidence motion. This Court had reserved
liberty to the members to file a fresh representation before
the Assistant Commissioner strictly in accordance with
Form No.I. Accordingly, the private respondents submitted
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
a representation on 31.12.2024 before the Assistant
Commissioner.
7. The endorsement on the representation dated
31.12.2024 shows that it was signed and received by the
respondent No.3 i.e., the Assistant Commissioner and not
by the Panchayat Development Officer. Therefore, the
prime contention of the petitioner that the representation
was received by the Panchayat Development Officer,
cannot be accepted. Insofar as the other contention that
two members, who submitted the representation did not
present themselves before the respondent No.3, there is
no material to support the said contention. The claim of
the petitioner that the respondent No.3 did not refer to the
proceedings and the findings recorded by this Court in WP
No.203487/2024 is also liable to be rejected, as there was
no need for the respondent No.3 to reflect upon the
findings recorded by this Court in WP No.203487/2024
while issuing a notice for fixing the date of meeting to
consider the motion of no confidence. Thus, all grounds
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:196
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are bereft
of merits.
8. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
