Karnataka High Court
Praveen Dharmaraddi Madalli vs The Assistant Commissioner on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
WP No. 107202 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 107202 OF 2025 (CS-EL/M)
BETWEEN:
PRAVEEN DHARMARADDI MADALLI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: 2ND WARD,
KURUBAGERI ONI, BELAVANAKI,
TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 202.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANKET SHANKRAPPA AMBALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by
GADAG.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN Location: HIGH
KATTIMANI COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.10.15
10:05:32 +0100
2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
3. SMT. RENUKA KARIYAPPA KARKIKATTI,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
WP No. 107202 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. SRI. BASAVARAJ NAGAPPA JAKANUR,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
5. SMT. HEMAVATHI BHEEMARADDI HALLIKERI,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
6. SRI. RAJASHEKHAR VIJAYAKUMAR PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
7. SMT. MUTTAVVA BASAVARAJ NAYKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
8. SRI. NASEERAHMED MAHMADALI JANKHANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
9. SMT. KALAKAVVA MAILARAPPA MADAR,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
WP No. 107202 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. SMT. KASTURI MUTTAPPA SHIVASHIMPI,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DT: GADAG-582 202.
11. SRI. MAHANTESH VASARADDI SHIROL,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
12. SMT. INDRAVVA CHANDRASHEKHAR TALAWAR,
AGE: MAJOR, MEMBER,
BELVANAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELAVANAKI, TQ: RON,
DIST: GADAG-582 202.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. LAXMAN MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI/ORDER OF APPROPRIATE
NATURE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING NOTICE
BEARING NO. Gra. Pam./Avishvas/Vahi-21/2025-26 DATED
18.09.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ANNEXED HEREWITH
AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
WP No. 107202 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed assailing the meeting notice at
Annexure-A issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of
Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No Confidence against
Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules,
1994.
2. In terms of the notice at Annexure-A, the
meeting is convened on 13.10.2025 to consider the 'No
Confidence' motion against the petitioner who is Adhyaksha
of Belavanaki Gram Panchayat.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner's tenure is coming to an end on
30.12.2025. It is urged that 'No Confidence' motion which is
now moved against the petitioner is with an intention to
disrupt the activities of the Gram Panchayat as the tenure is
coming to an end. It is also urged that in case certain funds
allotted to the Gram Panchayat are not utilized before the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
HC-KAR
tenure coming to an end, the scheme will lapse and the
public will be deprived of the benefits flowing from the said
scheme.
4. Learned counsel would also urge that the Rules
referred to above do not provide any immunity to the
President from 'No Confidence motion' being moved against
him, as it is provided in first 15 months of he assuming the
office.
5. Referring to the Rules framed by the Tamil Nadu
under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 and
Chhattisgarh under Chhattisgarh Panchayath Raj Act, 1993,
learned counsel would urge that such immunity is granted
to the President or other office bearers of the Panchayat in
Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgar in the last part of the tenure
and same is very much required and same have to be read
into the Karnataka Rules.
6. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment of
Gujarat High Court in R/Letter Patent Appeal No.543 of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
HC-KAR
2017 to contend that Gujarat High Court has read the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 to hold that
such immunity is required to be extended to the President
of Gram Panchayat in Gujarat, and would also urge that
similar benefit to be extended by reading the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Gram Panchayat Act into the Karnataka Rules.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-
Panchayat would urge that the Karnataka Rules referred to
above do not provide for such immunity. Since the
members of the Panchayat have expressed 'No Confidence'
against the petitioner, the petitioner in the meeting to be
held on 13.10.2025 has to oppose the 'No Confidence'
motion and has to earn the confidence and to establish that
'No Confidence' motion is without any justification.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of
reply would contend that in case the petitioner is removed,
pursuant to the 'No Confidence' motion to be held on
13.10.2025, as President of Belavanaki Gram Panchayat,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
HC-KAR
the Gram Panchayat functions will come to a standstill and
Administrator will have to be appointed and the financial
activities of the Gram Panchayat are carried out by the
biometric of the President and Administrator will have to
use his biometrics and the change will take its own time
resulting in inconvenience to the public.
9. This court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
10. Admittedly the Karnataka Rules will provide
immunity from 'No confidence' motion only for first 15
months and there is no such immunity beyond 15 months.
It is indeed true that Tamil Nadu Legislature and
Chathisgarh Legislature have passed law providing such
immunity in the later part of the tenure as well. May be in
various other legislations passed by the various other
States, immunity is provided for different periods at the end
of the tenure. It is for the legislature to pass legislation. In
Karnataka, legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
HC-KAR
provide immunity from 'No Confidence' only in first 15
months and not beyond that.
11. Though the Gujarat High Court has read the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Legislation into the legislations
governing State of Gujarat, this Court is not convinced with
the petitioner's submission that such immunity should be
extended to the office bearers of the Gram Panchayat in the
State of Karnataka.
12. For what reason such immunity is not extended
by State of Karnataka is not known.
13. The contention that the activities of the Gram
Panchayat will be jeopardized in case 'No Confidence'
motion is moved during the concluding months of the
tenure cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. In case
the 'No Confidence' motion is moved and the president is
removed, the administrator will be appointed. The
contention that the change of biometrics will take its own
time has no merit. If the government takes actions swiftly,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13696
HC-KAR
the process of changing the biometrics of the removed
Adhyaksha with the incoming administrator can take place
within a day.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the no conference motion
which is scheduled on 13.10.2025. Hence the writ petition is
dismissed.
15. It is made clear that the reasons and opinions
expressed in this order should not be viewed as 'No
Confidence' against the petitioner.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CLK/KGK
CT:BCK
