(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ
Petitioner No.1 is the Vice President and petitioner
No.2 is the Member of the Mashal Gram Panchayat. The
members of the said Gram Panchayat have submitted a
representation to initiate no-confidence motion against the
President and Vice President of Mashal Gram Panchayat to
respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 issued a notice calling
for a meeting to discuss no-confidence motion against the
petitioner No.1 fixing a meeting scheduled to be held on
13.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioners, aggrieved by
the impugned notice, filed this writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
respondent No.3 has not complied the mandatory
provisions of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj
(Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short,
'Rules of 1994'). He submits that respondent No.3 has
initiated proceedings based on a representation submitted
by respondent Nos.5 to 23. He also submits that
respondent No.3 has to satisfy himself about the identity
of the members before issuing the impugned notice. He
further submits that in the absence of copy of notice of
intention to move no-confidence along with Form No.1, the
presentation of Form No.1 notice by the members of the
Gram Panchayat to respondent No.3 is totally contrary to
the prescribed procedure under the Karnataka Gram
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as well as Rules of
1994. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that in the absence of copy of notice of
intention to move no-confidence along with Form No.1 is
only an irregularity and not an illegality. She further
submits that issuance of notice of intention to move no-
confidence motion is only to notify to the petitioners
regarding the representation submitted by the members of
the Mashal Gram Panchayat.
6. To buttress her arguments, she places reliance
on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Smt.Laxmavva vs. the State of
Karnataka represented by its Secretary and Others
reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1028. Hence, on these
grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.13 adopts
the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader
and prays to dismiss the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
8. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties to the
petition.
9. It is not disputed that the petitioner No.1 is the
Vice President of Mashal Gram Panchayat and petitioner
No.2 is a member of the said Gram Panchayat.
Respondent Nos.5 to 23 submitted a representation to the
respondent No.3 to initiate no-confidence motion against
petitioner No.1. On receipt of the representation from the
members of said Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 issued
impugned notice on 23.04.2025 calling for a meeting to
discuss no-confidence motion against the President and
Vice President on 13.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m. It is the case
of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 has not
complied the provisions of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 i.e.,
notice of intention to move no-confidence along with Form
No.1. Thus, the action of respondent No.3 is contrary to
Rule 3 of Rules of 1994.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
10. The issue involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt.Laxmavva stated supra
wherein in paragraph No.10 it is held as under:
"10. On perusal of the records, especially the
written notice, we find that there is substantial
compliance of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. In such case,
mere attracting the copy of the proposed motion
would be duplicity of the work and that by itself
cannot be a ground to set at not the democratic
exercise of the members in functioning of these local
Governments. When the notice of the majority
members makes it clear their intention, mere non-
enclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity
and in our view does not cause any prejudice to the
other side."
11. As held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that mere
non-enclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity
and in our view does not cause any prejudice to the other
side.
12. This Court in W.P.No.201171/2025 disposed of
on 06.05.2025 at paragraph-17 held as under:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
"17.Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of
Mrs.Gagana vs. State of Karnataka and others in
W.A.No.160/2025 disposed of on 16.03.2025
has observed as under:
6.5 The distinction between the 'irregularity' and
'illegality' is well maintained in law. It is trite that
procedural lapse which does not have the bearing on
the rights of the parties is always condonable. It
would not have per se legal consequences. It is only
the substantive breach which will have the vitiating
effect. All defects of substantive nature would be
prone to have the adverse effect on the rights of the
parties, whereas when an irregularity has occurred
which is not in the nature of illegality, the
consequence in law may not arise at all.
6.5.1 In Law Lexicon by R. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997
Edition, irregularity is defined as "a neglect of order
or method; not according to regulations; the doing of
an act at an unreasonable time, or in an improper
manner; the technical term for every defect in
practical proceedings or the mode of conducting an
action or defence, as distinguished from defects in
pleading. Irregularity is failure to observe that
particular course of proceedings which, conformable
with the practice of the court, ought to have been
observed".
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
6.5.2 An illegality is something which amounts to
substantial failure in compliance of requirement. It
denotes such breach of rule or requirement which
alters the position of a party in terms of his rights or
obligations. Illegality denotes a complete defect in the
jurisdiction or proceedings. Illegality is properly
predictable in its radical defects. It is a situation
contrary to the principle of law. As against this, an
irregularity as defined lexicographically, is want of
adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of
proceedings. It consist in omitting the rule something
that is necessary for due and orderly conducting of a
suit or doing it in an unreasonable time or improper
manner.
6.5.3 A thing irregularly done is not regularly done. It
is not in conformity of rule or principle. The concepts
"illegal", "irregular" and "procedurally irregular", are
often understood in terms of their degree which they
bear to be not in conformity with rule of particular
course of action. The illegality is a breach of law in
substantive way and in its high degree which will taint
and vitiate the action.
6.5.4 One who commits "illegality" has to be denied
the assertion of his right and he stands disentitled to
relief in law. Irregularity, as noticed, is breach of
procedure of rule or some orderly conduct but not of
such nature which could be said to be in the nature of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
a debilitating defect. It is pardonable in law. The
concept of procedural irregularity is indicative of lapse
of minor nature in procedure which could not affect
adversely rights of a party, nor would exceptionally
reverse the obligation of the other side.
6.6 In the present case if the aspect that the No-
Confidence Motion had the seal of the Panchayat
Development Officer, it was never an illegality but at
the best could be viewed as a procedural abrasion.
6.7 In view of the discussions and the reasons
supplied above, the order of dismissal of the petition
and refusal to grant relief to the petitioner by learned
Single Judge did not book any error. The impugned
order warrants no interference."
13. Further, learned High Court Government
Pleader has produced the original records which disclose
that all the members of the Gram Panchayat have
submitted the representation to respondent No.3 and also
produced the photographs which disclose that all the
members of the said Gram Panchayat have submitted the
representation to respondent No.3 to initiate no-
confidence motion against the petitioner No.1. Mere non-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2630
enclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity and
not illegality. Thus, it is clear that there is no violation of
Rules of 1994.
14. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division
Bench in the case of Smt.Laxmavva stated supra.
Considering the judgment in the case of Smt.Laxmavva
stated supra, I do not find any illegality in conducting the
meeting of no-confidence motion by respondent No.3.
15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is dismissed.
ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to proceed
with conducting meeting of no-confidence
motion, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
VNR
CT:SI
