Karnataka High Court
Sujatha And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445
WP No. 203670 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203670 OF 2024 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O. SHANKAR CHALUVADI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. KAVALAGI, HONNULGI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586127.
2. KANNAPPA
S/O. MALAKARI PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. VICE PRESIDENT,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
Digitally signed
by RENUKA TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
Location: High
Court Of ...PETITIONERS
Karnataka (BY SRI. A. M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING BENGALOORU. -560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYPURA-586 101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445
WP No. 203670 of 2024
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYPURA SUB-DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KANAKADASA BADAVANE,
VIJAYPURA-586 101
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
VIJAYAPURA-586101
5. GRAM PANCHAYAT MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586 104
6. MALAKARI HIREKURUBAR
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
7. CHANDRASHEKAR MENDEGAR
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
8. MAHADEVI C SIBEGOND
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
9. LAXMIBHAI S BANDAPATTI
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445
WP No. 203670 of 2024
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
10. CHETANA R. BAGALI
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER,
GRAM PANCHYATH MADABHAVI,
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104.
11. JAITUNABI MANAGULI
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR-586104
12. BAGAWWA M MADAR
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA,
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104
13. DHARMU HIRU RATHOD
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
14. SUNITHA PARSHURAM CHAWAN
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
15. PRAKASH RATHOD
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445
WP No. 203670 of 2024
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
16. SUNITHA PANDURANGA RATHOD
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
17. MEGHU RATHOD
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
18. KRISHNA BANDIWADDAR
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH MADABHAVI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
19. JAYASHREE UKKALI
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH KAVALAGI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
20. SADASHIV SIDRAM JADHAV
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH KAVALAGI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
21. BHARATHI E HALLI
AGE. MAJOR OCC. MEMBER
GRAM PANCHAYATH KAVALAGI
TQ. VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYPURA
R/O. MADABHAVI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445
WP No. 203670 of 2024
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYPUR - 586104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE
FOR R6 TO R21)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT QUASHING THE
NOTICE BEARING NO. GR.PUM/CHUNAA/AAVIM/CR-26/2024-25
DATED 09.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND C1 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO. 3.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the notices bearing No.GR.Pum/ChuNaa/AaViM/CR-26/2024-25 dated 09.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 convening a meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat, Madabhavi on 26.12.2024 to consider a no confidence motion.
2. The petitioners being the President and Vice President of Gram Panchayat, Madabhavi have filed this petition challenging the notices issued by the respondent No.3 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:445 WP No. 203670 of 2024 convening a meeting of the members on 26.12.2024 to consider a no confidence motion. The only contention urged by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the representation filed by the private respondents in Form No.1 was placed before the Panchayat Development Officer, who endorsed on the representation that "the private respondents were members of the Panchayat". It is contended that the Panchayat Development Officer has no role to play in the process leading up to the no confidence motion. Therefore, it is contended that the entire process is vitiated. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 203171/2024. Paragraph No.10 of the said judgment would be relevant and hence, the same is extracted, which reads as under:
"A plain reading of Rule 3(1) of the said Rules of 1994, clearly indicates that the respondent Nos.5 to 15 were entitled to submit the same only to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the PDO; further, a conjoint reading of Rule 3(1) and Form No.1 will also indicate that, the same do not provide for any writing, signature or seal or of anyone else other than the respondent Nos.5 to 15 who submitted the impugned representation or the Assistant Commissioner who received the same from them; in other words, Rule 3(1) r/w Form No 1 of the said Rules of 1994 do not contemplate in any manner either the presence, involvement or participation of the PDO for the purpose of submission of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:445 WP No. 203670 of 2024 representation or at the time of its submission; neither is there any other provision under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 or the said Rules of 1994, which permit the PDO to affix his writings, signature or seal on the representation in Form No.1 submitted by the respondent Nos.5 to 15. It is therefore clear that as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 3(1) r/w Form No.1 of the said Rules of 1994, it is only the respondent Nos.5 to 15 and the Assistant Commissioner who were entitled to affix their signatures, writings and seal on the representation and there was no scope/room for anyone else, much less the PDO to either participate, involve or be present at the time of submission of the representation nor affix his signature, writings or seal on the representation which is contrary to Rule 3(1) r/w Form No.1 of the said Rules of 1994."
The Coordinate Bench quashed the notice and reserved liberty to the private respondents therein as well as the Assistant Commissioner to proceed in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prays that a similar order be passed in this case also and the impugned notice dated 09.12.2024 be set at naught.
4. Learned counsel for private respondents did not dispute the fact that the issue raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in WP No. 203171/2024. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:445 WP No. 203670 of 2024
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate also did not dispute the said fact.
6. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices issued by the respondent No.3 dated 09.12.2024 convening a meeting of the members of the Panchayat on 26.12.2024 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the private respondents to submit a fresh representation strictly in accordance with Form No.1 and the respondent No.3 shall proceed strictly in accordance with 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').
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27