Karnataka High Court
Chetana A Channabasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125
WP No. 100364 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
R
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100364 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
CHETHANA A CHANNABASAPPA
AGE MAJOR, OCC. PRESIDENT OF
HOSAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O A CHANNABAAPPA HOSAHALLI BALLARI
TQ: HOSAHALLI, DIST: BELLARI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
AND EX OFFICIO SERETARY
RURAL AND PANCHAYT RAJ DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Digitally signed by
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.01.29 11:44:07
BALLARY
DIST.BELLARY 583101
+0530
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HOSPETE
DIST. BELALRY 583101
4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
HOSAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT
DIST. BELALRY 583101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125
WP No. 100364 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT
RECORDS AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE BEARING
NO.SAM/KAM/GRAPAN/CHUNAVANE/48/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 06/01/2025, AS ILLEGAL AND
ARBITRARY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to
3. Sri.Shivaraj Hiremath, counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.4.
2. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice bearing No. Sam/Kam/Grapan/Chunavane/48/2024-25 at Annexure-E issued by Respondent No.3 dated:
06.01.2025, as illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice and equity.
b. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to the costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025
3. The Petitioner is the Adhyaksha of Hosahalli Gram Panchayat, Ballari District. At this stage, learned AGA submits that Hosahalli Gram Panchayat comes within the Vijayanagara District and not in Ballari District. His submission is placed on record.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that acting on a representation received by the Assistant Commissioner on 19-12-2024, Respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, has vide the impugned notice at Annexure-E fixed the meeting for considering the 'No Confidence Motion' on 22.01.2025 at 11.00 a.m.
5. The submission of Sri Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that:
5.1. The requisition has not been submitted in terms of Form I as required under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules').
His submission is that any requisition notice has to be in terms of Form I and a notice not in terms of Form I could not have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner.
5.2. His second submission is that any requisition notice ought to be accompanied by a proposed motion in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The proposed motion not accompanying the requisition notice, the Assistant Commissioner could not have acted upon it. 5.3. Lastly, he submits that in the requisition notice there is a mention made of an earlier requisition on 7.11.2024 and by referring to the earlier requisition of 7.11.2024, he submits that that contains several allegations. These allegations cannot be the basis for holding a meeting for considering a No-Confidence Motion -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 subsequent to the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 with effect from 31-3-2020. 5.4. His submission in this regard is once sub-
section (2) of Section 49 had been deleted, No motion for No-Confidence could be made by making allegations against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in the case of C.Puttaswamy vs. Smt.Prema1 more particularly Para 18 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. The provision under S. 47(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, requiring the Assistant Commissioner to give to members of a Mandal Panchayat notice of a meeting for consideration of a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan or Upa-pradhan "of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting" is mandatory.1
1992 SCC OnLine KAR 74 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 5.5. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Seema Sarkar vs. Executive Officer and ors.,2 more particularly Paras 26, 28, 31 and 33 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
26. It will be useful to advert to Rule 10, which reads thus:
"10. Adjournment of meeting for want of quorum. - (1) If, within one hour from the time appointed for holding a meeting of a Panchayat quorum is not present, the meeting may be adjourned and may be held on another date to be fixed by the Chairperson or the Vice Chairperson of the Presiding member as the case may be. The members shall be informed of the date, place and time of the adjourned meeting by a fresh three day's notice in Form2. No quorum shall be necessary for such adjourned meeting. No business other than that included in the list of business for transaction at the original meeting shall be brought before an adjourned meeting.
(2). In determining the quorum, fraction of one half and above be counted one, and less than half shall be ignored."
28. To put it differently, the provisions in the Regulation and the Rules distinctly deal with the manner in which a motion of 'No Confidence' should be moved and carried forward to its logical end. In that sense, the central issue is about the purport of the mechanism provided in the Regulation and the Rules on the subject of 'No Confidence Motion'. From the legislative scheme it is noticed that as and when the special meeting to consider the 'No Confidence Motion' proceeds, Section 117(2) mandates that the motion may be treated as carried out only if a 2 Manu/SC/0646/2019 (Civil Appeal No.4547/2019) -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 majority of not less than twothirds of the "total number" of members of the Panchayat Samiti vote in favour of removal of the Pramukh or UpPramukh, as the case may be. A similar position is restated in Rule 21 of the Rules.
31. That takes us to the question as to who can vote on the 'No Confidence Motion'. Indubitably, the language of Section 117 of the Regulation envisages that the motion is required to be carried by a majority of not less twothirds of the "total number"
of members of the Panchayat Samiti present and voting. A similar mandate flows from Rule 9 read with Rule 21 of the Rules. The question is whether the law as enacted in the form of Section 117 of the Regulation, in any way, deviates from the scheme of PartIX of the Constitution. Our answer is an emphatic "NO".
33. We must presume that the State Legislature was conscious of the marked distinction between the category of members constituting the Panchayat Samiti. As is evident from Section 107(2), it refers to a category of persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies, in contradistinction to the other category of persons mentioned in Section 107(3), the constituent of the Panchayat Samiti. If the legislature had intended to exclude the latter category from the process of 'No Confidence Motion', it would have expressly limited it to only the elected members [former category ascribable to Section 107(2)] of the Panchayat Samiti, as is done at the stage of election of the chairperson. Whereas, the provision makes it incumbent that not less than two- thirds of the "total number" of members of the Panchayat Samiti must participate and vote. This is the legislative intent which cannot be whittled down by some overstretched interpretative process including by relying on the common law principle that only the body of persons, who had elected the Pramukh or Up Pramukh, alone can initiate such a process.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 5.6. He relies upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Hanamavva vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot and others3 more particularly Para 11 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. The concept of no-confidence is based on the concept of amotion in the corporate world, where a person who has lost confidence of the Board of Directors is bound to be removed by the person/s appointing him. A grama panchayath under the Act of 1993 lies at the bottom of hierarchy of local self governing bodies and membership to it is based on election amongst resident citizens within the panchayath area. Amongst the members so elected, a President and Vice President are elected based on the applicable reservation roster, to carry on the activities of the Panchayath. In order to ensure that the President or Vice President of the Panchayath have a definite tenure, provision is made in Section 49 of the Act of 1993 that a no confidence motion cannot be moved within 30 months from the date of their election. Further to ensure that the proceedings of a no confidence motion are conducted in an orderly manner, Section 49 of the Act, 1993 lays down that the procedure as may be prescribed may be followed (emphasis by Court). The procedure is as prescribed under the Rules, 1994 which contemplates that a written notice of intention to move a no confidence in Form-I shall be submitted by not less than half of the members and shall be presented to the Assistant Commissioner by two members signing it. The Assistant Commissioner may thereafter give 15 clear days notice in Form-II to all the members and convene a meeting on a date which shall not be beyond 30 days from the date of the members 3 ILR 2022 KAR 4953 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 submitting Form-I. The meeting shall be presided over by the Assistant Commissioner who shall put the motion to vote and declare the result, upon which the concerned Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall cease to function. The Rules of 1994 have a mandatory flair since a motion of no confidence would act deleterious to not only the candidate but the constituency that he represents and therefore as held by the Full bench of this Court in Puttaswamy (supra), must be strictly complied with.
5.7. By relying on all the above judgments, his submission is that when a particular act has to be done in a particular manner, it would have to be done in that particular manner or not at all. Juxtaposing the same to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, he submits that any requisition notice has to be given in terms of Form I accompanied by the proposed motion. This being mandatory and being required to be done in terms of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 3, the requisition notice is no notice at all and the Assistant Commissioner could not have acted upon it.
5.8. He relies upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Sangan
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 Gouda N.Biradaar and anr., vs. Principal Secretary of Panchayath Karnataka and ors4 more particularly Paras 11 and 15 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. It is a well settled principle/position that when law or statute prescribes or provides any act, deed, thing, procedure, etc., to be done in a particular manner, it shall/has to be done in the same manner only and in no other manner as held by this Court as well as the Apex Court in various Judgments including in the case of Union of India Vs. Mahendra Singh, -
2022 SCC Online SC 909, wherein the Apex Court held as under:
14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different language is not followed by any consequence and, therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable. The language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor9, wherein it was held that "that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."4
WP No.203171/2024 dated 26.11.2024
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025
15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad10, held as under:
"17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with advantage : Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)], Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098], State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 :
(1964) 1 SCWR 57].) An election petition under the rules could only have been presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra) either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the period of limitation. That, however, was not done................"
16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh11 wherein this Court held as under:
"14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure............."
17. Similarly, this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal12 and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank13 has followed the said principle. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review.
18. Since the writ petitioner has used different language for filling up of the application form and the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected by the appellants."
15. It is however, to be stated that liberty is to be reserved in favour of the respondent Nos.5 to 15 to submit a fresh/new representation in Form No.1 under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules of 1994 by following the proper/prescribed procedure and if such a representation is submitted by them, liberty is to be reserved in favour of the Assistant Commissioner to receive the same and proceed further in accordance with law without reference to Section 49 (b-i) including its proviso to the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
5.9. On the basis of all the above he submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the prayes granted.
6. Learned AGA would submit to the contrary by referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Laxmavva vs. The State of Karnataka rep by its Secretary and ors.,5 more particularly Paras 10, 11 and 12 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
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 5 ILR 2007 KAR 1028
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 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. The learned Single Judge, in the case of Mallamma, has merely relied upon the language of Rule 3(1) and held that if the notice does not accompany (separately) the proposed motion of no- confidence, is bad in law. We do not agree with this proposition. In our view, non-compliance has to be seen in the background as to whether the same has caused any prejudice to the person aggrieved.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and after perusal of the notice, we find that since the notice also incorporates the proposal of no- confidence motion, there is substantive compliance of the requirement of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. As such, the reliance placed by the Learned Counsel in the case of Mallamma, is of no assistance to the facts of the case.
6.1. By relying on the aforesaid paragraphs, he submits that what is required is a substantial compliance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. Merely attaching the copy of the proposed motion would be a duplicity of the work and non-attachment cannot be a ground to set at naught the democratic exercise of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 members in the functioning of the local governments when the notice of the majority members makes it clear the purpose for which it has been issued. Mere non-enclosing of the proposal or the proposed resolution would only be irregularity. He thus submits that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would be binding on this Court and the Division Bench having categorically held that non- enclosure of a proposed motion would be only irregularity. The same cannot be said to be mandatory.
6.2. His submission in respect of Form I is that again Form I is only a form prescribed under the Rules which require the requisition notice to contain certain material facts. The said notice being addressed to the Assistant Commissioner mentioning the subject of motion of No Confidence to be moved against Adhyaksha or
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 Upadhyaksha, expressing the intention thereof and has to be signed by the members so moving the no confidence. Mere non- mentioning of Form I in the ehading would not in any manner make the said requisition notice invalid or be said to be in violation of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3.
6.3. Insofar the last submission as regards the allegations made in the earlier requisition notice dated 7.11.2024, he submits that with effect from 31-3-2020 sub-section (2) of Section 49 having been deleted, there is no requirement to mention any reasons for moving the no confidence motion. Mentioning of reasons would not in any manner take away the requisition notice having been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 49.
7. Heard Sri.Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA for
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused papers.
8. The points that would arise for consideration are:
1) Whether a requisition notice has to be in Form I and mention Form I for it to be valid in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994?
2) Whether a proposed motion of No-Confidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994?
3) Whether making of allegations against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha while moving a motion for No-Confidence after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 with effect from 31.3.2020 would render such requisition notice invalid?
4) What order?
9. Answer to Point No.1: Whether a requisition notice has to be in Form I and mention Form I for it to be valid in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994?
9.1. The submission of Sri.Sunil Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that when things have to be done in a particular manner, it would have to be done in that manner or not at all and in that regard the decisions cited supra have been relied upon.
9.2. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"(1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form I signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner"
9.3. What is required in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is a written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 in Form
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 I signed by not less than the number specified in sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion to be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner.
9.4. It is not in dispute that there is a notice in writing submitted by two members signing the motion to the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2024. It is also not in dispute that the intention of such persons to move a motion of No-Confidence has been made clear in the said notice. The submission of Mr.Desai is that such notice has to be in terms of Form I. 9.5. Form I is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Form I [See Rule 3(1)] To.
The Assistant Commissioner ............................. ............................
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 Sir, Sub: Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of...
Grama Panchayat.
We, the following members hereby give notice of our intention to move that Sri..... Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of .......... Grama Panchayat shall be removed from the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha.
Yours Faithfully, Signature of members of Grama Panchayat.
1.
2.
3.
etc. 9.6. What is required to be seen by this Court is whether the requisition notice received by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2024 is in compliance with Form I or not? The said Form I having been reproduced hereinabove, the contents of the requisition notice received by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2024 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 ¢£ÁAPÀ :
EªÀjUÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ºÉƸÀ¥ÉÃmÉ.
«dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ : ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw CzsåÀ PÀëgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀÄAr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, PÀÆrèV vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwAiÀÄ 23 ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 07.11.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À« CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 05.12.2024 gÀAzÀÄ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀÄAr¸À®Ä £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ºÁ° CzsåÀ PÀëgÁzÀ J.¹ ZÉÃvÀ£ïgÀªÀgÀÄ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ°è C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀÄAqÀ£ÉUÉ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ vÀA¢zÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀÄAqÀ£É ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÄÀ Ý ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹¢ÝÃj. CzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 18.12.2024 gÀAzÀÄ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀĪÀÅ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ gÀzÀÄÝUÉƽ¹ «¯ÉêÁj ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ 2£Éà ¨ÁjUÉ 23 ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ C«±Áé¸À UÉÆvÀÄÛªÀ½ ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹UÀ¼ÀÄ 9.7. Comparing both of them, it is seen that the requisition notice has been addressed to the Assistant Commissioner as required in Form I. The subject as mentioned in the requisition notice is the motion of No-Confidence against the Adhyaksha - the petitioner herein which is what is required in Form -I.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 9.8. In the body of the requisition notice, it has been mentioned that in connection with the above subject, earlier requisition notice had been issued on 7.11.2024 followed by 5.12.2024 and now the present requisition notice has been issued to give notice of their intention to move a No-Confidence motion against the petitioner. The contents of the body of the notice is in line with and in compliance with Form I as extracted above.
9.9. The only thing which is missing is the heading Form I with the subheading see Rule 3 (1), which to my considered opinion is only a formality.
9.10. The purport and purpose of issuing a notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules is to submit a requisition to the Assistant Commissioner clearly identifying the purpose of the notice so as to enable the Assistant Commissioner to take action thereon and
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 forward a copy of the said notice to the concerned Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as also the members of the Gram Panchayat. 9.11. A reading of the requisition notice clearly makes out the intention of the person signing it and conveys the meaning and purport of the said requisition notice, which would be clear not only to the Assistant Commissioner, the Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha or the Gram Panchayat members, but also to any third party or a layman reading it. Hence the purpose of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules is clearly addressed by the requisition notice. Merely not mentioning Form I on the requisition notice cannot even be said to be irregularity, but can only be said to be omission of not mentioning Form I when Form I only prescribes the contents, the heading being irrelevant.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 9.12. Hence, I answer Point No.1 by holding that a requisition notice has to be in Form I and non- mentioning of Form I will not make it invalid under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.
10. Answer to Point No.2: Whether a proposed motion of No-Confidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No- Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994?
10.1. This aspect has already been addressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt.Laxmavva's case (supra). Though the submission of Sri.Sunil Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is mandatory to enclose the proposed motion and in this regard
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 he has referred to the Full Bench judgments referred to supra, a perusal of those judgments do not indicate the Full Benches having dealt with the enclosure of the proposed motion. The only judgment which has been placed on record before this Court in that regard is the judgment of the Division Bench in Laxmavva's case (supra), which has categorically held that the non-enclosure of the proposed motion is only an irregularity and so long as a notice incorporates the proposal of No-Confidence motion, there is substantive compliance of the requirements of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.
10.2. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that it is not mandatory that a proposed motion of No- Confidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, the requisition notice containg the details of the motion to be moved is sufficient compliance with the said rule.
11. Answer to Point No.3: Whether making of allegations against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha while moving a motion for No- Confidence after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 with effect from 31.3.2020 would render such requisition notice invalid? 11.1. The submission of Mr.Desai, learned counsel for petitioner is that once sub-section (2) of Section 49 was deleted from the Statute Book, no motion or requisition could be submitted by incorporating any allegations against the Upadhyaksha or Upadhyaksha.
11.2. This submission made by Mr.Desai is contrary to the provision of Section 49 inasmuch as prior to the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 on 31.3.2020, the said provision contemplated two aspects. The first aspect of moving a
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 motion for No-confidence without making allegations under subsection (1) of Section 49 and the second aspect relating to making allegations against the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and thereafter moving the motion for No-confidence on that basis. 11.3. Prior to 31.3.2020 if a notice of motion was to be moved, reference would have to be made to the particular sub-section of Section 49 under which the notice of motion was moved and if a notice of motion is moved under sub-section (2) of Section 49, then there would have been requirement to mention the allegations in detail so as to enable the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha to respond to the same.
11.4. With the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 with effect from 31.3.2020, there is no requirement for making any allegations in a notice of motion for No-confidence. Such a
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 motion can be moved under sub-section (1) of Section 49 without making any allegations and the outcome of the same would depend on the voting thereon. Thus, the Legislature having deleted Subsection (2) of Section 49, a notice of motion can be moved without making any allegations.
11.5. It is not that allegations cannot be made but it is that under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 a motion can be moved without making allegations. Sub-section (1) of Section 49 does not indicate that if any allegations are made in the notice, the said notice would be invalid or otherwise. It was only when subsection (2) of Section 49 was present in the Statute Book and a notice of motion was moved under sub- section (2) of Section 49 that it mandated the allegations to be made. Moving of a notice of motion under sub-section (1) of Section 49 can therefore be moved either by making
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 allegations or without allegations. Making an allegation would not make the said notice invalid.
11.6. Be that as it may, in the present case, the notice of motion received by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2024 does not contain any allegation but only refers to the earlier notices of motion dated 7.11.2024 and 5.12.2024. Thus, even if the submission of Mr. Desai is accepted, which I do not, the impugned notice not containing any allegation cannot be said to be in violation of subsection (1) of section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
11.7. In that view of the matter, I answer Point No.3 by holding that making of allegations against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha while moving a motion for No-Confidence after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 49 with effect from
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1125 WP No. 100364 of 2025 31.3.2020 would not render such requisition notice invalid.
12. Answer to Point No.4: What order?
12.1. No grounds have been made out. The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51