Karnataka High Court
Smt Ratnabai vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
WP No. 200149 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200149 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATNABAI W/O SIDRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT,
GRAM PANCHAYAT SHRICHANDVILLAGE,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI- 585 316.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. KADGANCHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
REPRESENTED BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING BENGALOORU.-560001
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location: High 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Court Of KALABURGI-585101
Karnataka
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI-585 101.
4. GRAM PANCHAYAT SHRICHAND
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585316
5. SMT. RAJASHREE S/O PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
WP No. 200149 of 2025
TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
6. SMT. REKHA W/O BABURAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
7. SRI. PRASAD S/O SHRIMANTRAO
AGED 32 YRS, OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYAT SHRICHAND
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI-585 316.
8. SMT. LALITABAI W/O NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
9. SMT. KASTURIBAI W/O YESHWANT,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ.KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
10. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O BABU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
11. SRI. SHARNABASAPPA W/O AMBARAYA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
12. SRI. CHANNAVEERAPPA W/O SHIVANAND,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
13. SMT. SUGNAMMA S/O GURULINGAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH, SHRICHAND,
TQ. KAMALAPUR DIST. KALABURGI -585 316
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
WP No. 200149 of 2025
14. SRI. SANJUKUMAR S/O PANDAPPA
AGE ABOUT 34 YRS, OCC- MEMBER GRAM
PANCHAYAT SHRICHAND VILLAGE, TQ- KAMALAPUR
DIST- KALABURGI 585316
15. SMT. SUJATABAI W/O DASHRAT
AGE ABOUT 50 YRS, OCC- MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYAT SHRICHAND VILLAGE
TQ- KAMALAPUR, DIST- KALABURGI 585316
16. SMT. VIJAYABAI W/O BHAGWANTRAO
AGE ABOUT 58 YRS OCC- MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYAT SHRICHAND VILLAGE
TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST- KALABURGI 585 316
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, AGA, FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R16)
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/CHUNAVANE/82/2024-25 DATED 30.12.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS
BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A .
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being the President of Gram Panchayat
Shrichand village has filed this petition challenging the
notice dated 30.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3
proposing to hold a meeting of the members of the Gram
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
Panchayat on 21.01.2025 to consider the no confidence
motion.
2. The petitioner contends that she was elected as
the President of Gram Panchayat, Shrichand village on
27.07.2023. She contends that though she had
undertaken several developmental works, yet, some
disgruntled members of the Gram Panchayat had moved a
notice of no confidence on 21.01.2025, following which,
respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 30.12.2024,
proposing to hold a meeting of the members on
21.01.2025. The petitioner contends that under Rule 3(2)
of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion Of No-Confidence
Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha Of Grama
Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (herein after referred to as the
'Rules 1994'), the meeting of the members must be
convened by or before 30 days from the date of receipt of
the representation in Form No.1. She contends that since
the notice is issued after 30 days, the notice is defective
and is in absolute violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules 1994.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if Rule
3(2) of the Rules 1994, mandates that the elections have
to be conducted not later than 30 days from the date of
receipt of the representation in Form No.1, the respondent
No.3 has no discretion to conduct a meeting thereafter.
She therefore contends that the impugned notice issued
by the respondent No.3 being violative of Rule 3(2) Rules
1994, the same is liable to be set at naught.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated
the above and contended that the impugned notice is
liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the private respondents
contended that the requirement to conduct a meeting
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
representation is held to be directory by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Muniyappa and
Another V/s State of Karnataka and Others in
W.P.Nos.31018 and 31019 of 1996. He therefore
contends that mere delay in holding the meeting would not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
obliterate the process. He contends that the petitioner
would not be prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, but on
the contrary is given more time to convince the members
to vote against the no confidence motion. Therefore, he
contends that the petitioner cannot complain that the
notice is in violation of Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994. He
contends that while calculating the 30 days prescribed in
Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994, public holidays has to be
excluded. He contends that the date of the notice
submitted by the members as well as the date of holding
the meeting has to be excluded and if, the same is done,
the meeting convened by the respondent No.3 is within
the 30 day period. Therefore, he contends that the notice
issued by the respondent No.3 is well within the 30 day
period and hence, no interference is warranted with the
impugned notice. In support of this contention he drew
analogy from the first part of Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994,
which mandates that the members of the Panchayat
should be given a 15 days clear notice and that while
calculating the 15 day period, the date of the notice and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
the date of the meeting shall be excluded. Therefore, he
contends that petitioner being the Adhyakshya of the
Panchayat cannot maintain a writ petition by exploiting the
mistakes committed by the respondent No.3. He further
contends that the members of the Panchayat cannot be
prejudiced by a mistake committed by the respondent
No.3 and therefore, no indulgence is warranted with the
notice issued by the respondent No.3.
5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that a few other Coordinate Benches of this
Court in WP Nos. 44105-44106/2018, 45939/2018,
39256/2018 and WP No. 104177/2018 had quashed the
notice of the meeting that was scheduled beyond the 30
day period.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate also
supported the contention of the learned counsel for the
private respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
7. I have considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government
Advocate for official respondents and learned counsel for
private respondents.
8. Since, the issue in this petition centers around
the question whether the time prescribed for conducting a
meeting of the members of the Panchayat to consider a no
confidence motion under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 1994 is
mandatory or directory, the said Rule is extracted below
for immediate reference:
"3(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter
convene ameeting 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-K:327
9. It is now well settled that if a statue prescribes
that a thing has to be done in a particular manner, it has
to be done in that manner alone or not at all.
10. A Full bench of this Court in the case of C.
Puttaswami V/s Smt. Prema, AIR 1992 KAR 356
while considering the question whether 15 days clear
notice of a motion of no confidence to the members of the
Panchayat as prescribed under Section 47(3) of the
Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis,
Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act 1983, is
mandatory or directory, held that the rules framed
regarding no confidence motion is a complete code in itself
and therefore, it held that the procedure and timelines
prescribed therein are mandatory. The Full Bench drew
support from the judgment of the Honorable Supreme
Court in the case of K. Narasimhiah Vs H. C. Singri
Gowda,1 and held that the underlying idea of Section
AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 330
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
47(3) is to ensure that the position of men holding high
elective offices of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha are not
easily disturbed, so that the functioning of the Panchayat
is not disrupted. Therefore, it held that issuance of a 15
days clear notice of the motion of no confidence to all the
members of the Panchayat is mandatory.
11. The issue whether holding of a meeting within
30 days from the date of receipt of the representation
from the members as prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the
Rules 1994 is directory or mandatory is no longer res-
integra, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.5159-5160/1990, where it was held
that "In this case, there is no dispute that the meeting
was not held within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
notice of no confidence by the Assistant Commissioner and
it was held after the expiry of 30 days. Therefore, the
meeting is in violation of the mandatory requirement of
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules and the same is not
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
valid in terms of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act and Rule
3(2) of the rules". The Division Bench after referring to
the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of M. Muniyappa and Another Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others, set aside the judgment passed
therein and held that the Rule 3(2) Rules 1994, employs
the word 'shall' and therefore, the legislative intent is to
make it mandatory for the Assistant Commissioner to
convene a meeting without loss of much time.
12. In the instant case, the representation in Form
No.1 was submitted by the members of the Panchayat on
21.12.2024, requesting respondent No.3 to convene a
meeting of the members. Respondent No.3 issued a notice
dated 30.12.2024, proposing a meeting on 21.01.2025.
Therefore, the meeting which was supposed to be
convened by or before 20.01.2025, as per Rule 3(2) of the
Rules, 1994 and was held on 21.01.2025. Thus, the
impugned notice was in violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules,
1994.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
13. The contention of learned counsel for private
respondents that the date of the meeting has to be
excluded cannot be accepted. In view of the language
employed in Rule 3(2) of Rules 1994, which mandates that
the meeting has to be held within 30 days 'from' the date
of receipt of the representation in Form No.1, meaning
thereby that the meeting should be held on or before the
30th day from the date of receipt of the representation.
14. The other contention of the learned counsel for
the respondents that the private respondents cannot be
put on the guillotine for a mistake committed by the
respondent No.3 can also not be accepted, as it is the post
of Adhyaksha which is at stake and the petitioner is
entitled to challenge the notice issued to her on the
ground that it violates a statutory rule. Since, the notice
impugned in this writ petition violated Rule 3(2) of Rules
1994, the same is liable to be quashed.
15. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:327
16. The impugned notice issued by the respondent
No.3 dated 30.12.2024 proposing to hold a meeting of the
members of the Panchayat on 21.01.2025 is quashed.
However, it is open for the private respondents to take
fresh steps in accordance with law.
17. If, fresh representation in Form No.1 is
submitted by the members of Gram Panchayat in the
manner provided under Rule 3(1) of Rules 1994,
respondent No.3 shall proceed strictly in accordance with
Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of Rules 1994.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
