Karnataka High Court
Smt. Geetha W/O Rangappa Walikar vs The Assistant Commissioner on 21 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625
WP No. 101344 of 2025
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 101344 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GEETHA
W/O RANGAPPA WALIKAR
AGE 46 YEARS
OCC: PRESIDENT
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL PIN 583277
2. SRI BASANAGOUDA
S/O GIREGOUDA MASAKATTI
AGE47 YEARS
OCC: VICE PRESIDENT
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL PIN 583277
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA ...PETITIONERS
RAGHAVENDRA (BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL PIN 583239
2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL PIN 583277
3. SRI SANGAPPA
S/O YELLAPPA KUMBAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625
WP No. 101344 of 2025
AGE 45 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O HIEGONNAGAR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL PIN 583 277
4. SMT GANGAVVA
W/O HANAMAPPA HARIJAN
AGE 38 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O HIREGONNAGAR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
5. SMT RENUKA
W/O HANAMAPPA MENASGERI
AGE 35 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O HIREGONNAGAR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
6. SMT MASAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA MENASGERI
AGE 40 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O HIREGONNAGAR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
7. SMT MALLAVVA HANAMAPPA KADAD
AGE 44 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O NARASAPUR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625
WP No. 101344 of 2025
8. SRI KALAKAPPA YELLAPPA KADAD
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O NARASAPURA
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
9. SMT PARVATI NAGAPPA ANGADI
AGE 34 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O MOOGANUR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
10. SRI DASTAGIRSAB HUSENSAB JULKATTI
AGE 48 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O MOOGANUR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583277
11. KALAKAPPA BHEEMAPPA ADAPATTI
AGE 34 YEARS
OC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYT
R/O MOOGANUR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583277
12. SMT RAJEYABEGAM LATIFSAB JULKATTI
AGE 44 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O MOOGANUR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583277
13. SRI MAHANTESH YAMANAPPA GUDADAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625
WP No. 101344 of 2025
AGE 45 YEARS
OCC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O WARIKAL
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583277
14. SMT SHARANAVVA NINGAPPA MAYGERI
AGE 48 YEARS
OC MEMBER
HIREGONNAGAR GRAM PANCHAYAT
R/O CHICKGONNAGAR
TQ KUSHTAGI
DIST KOPPAL
PIN 583 277
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ABHISHEK L KALLAD., ADVOCATE FOR R3-14;
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR. B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED
14.02.2025 BEARING NO. KANDAYA/ CHUNAVANE/ AA. GO/06/2024-
25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT OF ADHYAKSHA (PETITIONER NO.1) 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. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 bearing No. Kandaya/ Chunavane/ AA. GO/06/2024-25 issued by the R1 authority marked as Annexure-C in respect of Adhyaksha (Petitioner No.1) in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 bearing No. Kandaya/ Chunavane/ AA. GO/06/2024-25 issued by the R1 authority marked as Annexure-D in respect of Upadhyaksha (Petitioner No.2) in the interest of justice and equity.
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned representation/Form No.1 dated 03.02.2025 as submitted by the respondents No. 3 to 14 vide Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity.
iv. Such other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fits on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner No.1-Adhyaksha and the petitioner No.2-Upadhyaksha are before this Court aggrieved by the notices dated 14.2.2025 issued by respondent No.1 fixing the date for consideration of the no confidence motion as 3.3.2025 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of grama panchayath, Hiregowdnagar, Kustagi Taluk, Koppal District.
3. Sri.Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel for the petitioner submits;
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 3.1. Firstly, the requisition notice issued under Form No.1 in pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is a joint requisition notice which has been issued as regards both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and as such the requisition notice itself is not in accordance with the applicable law, in as much as the words used in the statute are Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha and as such single requisition notice could not have been issued in respect of both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
3.2. The second submission is that in order to consider both the notice of motions, the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner has fixed the same date, time and venue, as if both the resolutions would be considered at the same time which could not be so done, there being separate resolutions required to be passed.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 3.3. Lastly, he submits that in terms of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Gram Panchayat (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyakahs and Upadhayaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1994"), if there is no quorum within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and notice given under Sub- rule (1) shall lapse. In this regard he submits that, if the meeting were convened and the first motion were to be taken up insofar as the Adhyaksha is concerned and if the same were to go on for more than one hour, then the second notice would have automatically lapsed. 3.4. Thus, his submission is that the intention of legislature is not to have a joint or a common meeting but to have separate meetings under separate notices. In this regard, he refers to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1993') and submits that the usage of the words Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha wherever found, is with a disjunctive in between of the word "or" i.e., say Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, at no place in Section 49 is a conjunctive "and" used, viz., Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Therefore, there being a disjunctive "or" in between the words Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, there should have been separate notices of requisition under Form No.1, separate notices calling for the meeting under Form No.2 and there should be separate meetings held at different times in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994.
3.5. In this regard, he places reliance on the definition of the word "or" in the Law Lexicon by P. Ramnath Iyer, 2nd edition reprint 2010, more particularly at page 1369, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
Or. The word "or" is a disjunctive particle that marks an alternative, generally corresponding to "either." as. "either this or that," a connective that marks an alternative, as "you may read or may write that is, you may do one of the things at your pleasure, but not both." A conjunction marking distribution or an alternative. (See 5 SLR 259=15 IC 830.) "Or" prima facie has only an alternative significance. (Litt s. 732; per PARKE. В., Elliott v. Turner, 15 LJCP 49; 2 C. 446), but sometimes used as interpretative, or expository, of the former word. (Dwar. 689 Vf. Hills v. London Gas Co., 5 H. & Ν. 312.) The word 'or' is an alternative word. It is, however, not always disjunctive and is sometimes interpretative or expository of the preceding word. But no instances can be found where the term 'or' is used neither as alternative nor as synonymous. [75 IC 105=37 CLJ 478=AIR 1923 Cal 682. See also LBR (1893-1900), 348.] In a legacy to "A, or his issue." "A, or his legal repre-sentatives," "or his personal representatives, "or his heirs," "or" denotes substitution. In a direction that income "be applied by the proper authorities for the purchase of books for the Young Men's Institute, or any public Library which satisfies certain conditions, or a power to sell "all or any" portion of a stock, etc., "or" implies discretion or choice.
The word "or" is often used to express an alternative of terms, definitions or explanations of the same thing in different words, as, wilful or malicious prosecution. "Or" is sometimes used as an explanation of the preceding term, as, intoxicating or malt liquors, in which case, it has been held equivalent to "to-wit"; or such other like
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 expression as "that is to say"; "other-wise called";
"being."
"It is normally disjunctive, but sometimes it is read as conjunctive to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature as disclosed from the context". Municipal Council v. Bishandas Nathumal, AIR 1969 amply chaine or del PO Reno8 T 50P 147 at 149. [Civil Procedure Code (1908) Preamble) Contrat car requently be performed in of wd the athablis 2025.03.03 17:05 as to be read to mean 'and'. State of Bihar one of the ways that he likes when there | v. S.R. Roy, AIR 1966 SC 1995, 1997. [Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act (46 of 1948), S. 2(b) The use of the word or after 'shall pronounce the judg-ment against shows that the Court has discretion to pronounce udement against the defendant on mere non-filing of the written statement or to make such other onder in the suit as it thinks fit. The expression 'or' is a disjunctive.
It indicates that two powers contained in the rule before and after the word 'or' were meant to lay down two distinct powers relating to the discretion of the court and it could adopt either depending upon the peculiar facts of the case. Abdul Gani Mir v. Sakina Bano, AIR 1991 J & K 11, 13. [J & K Civil Procedure Code (1977 Svt.), O. 8. R. 10] Conjunction 'or' means alternatively and it is not con-verted into and Rajkumar v. The State of Tripura, AIR 1967 Tri 13. 15. [Motor Vehicles Act (1939), S.130(1)(a)) The word 'or must be read as 'and". Devidayal Nanak-chand. State of Industrial Court, AIR 1959 Bom 65, 67. (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 16(2)]
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 The use of the expression 'or' is not disjunctive. Depend-ing on the context, 'or' may be read as 'and' but the court would not do it unless it is obliged because 'or' does not generally mean 'and' and 'and does not generally mean 'or. R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Autulay, AIR 1984 SC 684, 708. [Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 21(12)(a)) The schemes of the Punjab Pre emptive Act, 1913 does not enjoin that the word 'or' used in S. 15 should be read as 'and'. Inder Singh v. Gulzara Singh, AIR 1969 Del 154 at 156. [Punjab Pre- emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 15(1)(b)) The word 'or' in CL. (g) must mean 'and', for the context regarding the qualification to be a member of the Board indicates that the members should be not only Hindus but also being to the denomination of Pushti-Margiya Vaishnavas. Govindalalji Maharaj v. State of Rajas than, AIR 1963 SC 1638, 1652. [Rajasthan Nathdwara Temple Act (13 of 1959), S. 5(2)(g)) The word 'or' in the proviso has the effect of 'and'. When there is a bar imposed in one circumstances or another, it means that the act barred cannot be done if either circumstances exists. Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan v. Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1963 All 488, 493. [Wealth Tax Act, 1957. S. 25 proviso(a)] In respect of discharge of oil from ship into the prohibited area in the sea, the offence is said to be committed by the owner or master of the ship. Here the word 'or' is used conjunctively and not in an alternative and ex-clusionary sene. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Department of Trade and Industry, (1974) 2 All ER 97 (HL). [Oil in Navigable Rivers Act, 1955, S. 1(1)] "
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 OR" IS SOMETIMES USED OR CONSTRUED AS "AND." In some statutes the word "or" is often used, and has been often construed, as if it were "and." It has been so used also in some rules of Court. It is likewise often so construed in different kinds of private writings, most frequently in wills, and also with considerably less frequency in others, such as deeds, bonds, leases or a company's by- laws. (29 Ame Cyc. 1505.) "Or" construed as "and". 1946 ITR 548.
Interpretation of statutes. It is legitimate to read the con-junctive and disjunctive words 'and' and 'or' one for the other, where the literal interpretation would defeat the intention of the legislature of the object of the Act Samapada v. Assistant Registrar Co-operative AIR 1964 Cal 190,
193. The expression or used in Section 183 between a contract and the expression execution of any work is to be read as any contract for execution of any work supply of materials or goods. k. Dasharatha. Mysore City Municipal Corporation, AIR 1995 Kant 157.165 Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (14 of 1977). S. 183] Or is. "Often construed as 'and, and and, construed in or, to further the intent of the parties in acts, legacies, devices, deeds, bonds and writings. (Bouvier.) "Or used for "and," See (31LW 754=1930 M. 510-58MLJ 622:91 IC 539-27 Cr LJ 107=1926 All 263.) It is sometimes necessary to read the conjunctions or and and one for the other. (87 IC 229=AIR 1925 Cal 1967.)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 'Produced or given in evidence. Here "or" has the force of "and." (113 IC 712=1929 Pat 60.) The word "or" in S. 82(2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation must be regarded as having been used in the sense of "and." (43 CWN 1359- AIR 1936 Cal 715.) The word "and" is sometimes construed as "or."
See ILR 1937 Nag 13-AIR 1937 Nag 310.) "Or' has been construed to mean 'and' and vice versa. And the power of the courts to do this in a proper case has never been questioned. But a proper case can arise only when from a reading of the act as a whole it becomes apparent that the word used was mistakenly used." [Carter v. Mc Clellan, 132 lowa 502 (505).) Strictly the word "or" in itself, has no such meaning as "and"; the true rule is that only when "or" is used by mistake, instead of "and," the latter may be substituted, But the substitution of "and" for "or" is, however, never judicially authorized, except where it is needed to conform to the clear intent of the legislative body or individual, using the word.
"The word 'or' may be taken to signify "and," when it appears to be consistent with the meaning implied by the context and in order to carry out the manifest intent of the contracting parties," but not where such inter-pretation "would be inconsistent with any intent which can reasonably be gathered from the connection in which the word is used, from the whole contest, or from the light of the surrounding circumstances."
"You will find it said in some cases that 'or' means 'and'; but 'or' never does mean 'and'; unless there is a context which shows it is used for "and" by mistake. Suppose a testator said, "I give the black
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 cow on which I usually ride to A.B.,' and he usually rode on a black horse; of course the horse would pass. But I do not think that any annotator of cases would put in the marginal note that 'cow' means "horse." (See Morgan v. Thomas, 9 LT Rep NS 281, 31 Wkly. Rep 106.) STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF "OR" IN PENAL STATUTES, In penal statutes "or" cannot be interpreted "and" when the effect would be to aggregate the punishment; but this rule does not extend to the admission of the con junctive construction where the word is used between the descriptions of different offences. (Ame Cyc.) CLERICAL ERRORS. Other substitutions have been ma for "or" where it has been found erroneously used "on," or for "to." (29 Ате Сус. 1507.) "Or": "Nor." In a negative statement, "or" may be taken as equivalent to "nor": following a negative, it has the same effect as "nor."
Or, nor. Full effect can be given by reading 'nor' for or-Interpretation of Statutes. C.P. and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act (14 of 1931), S. 13(3), Bedprasad v. Bhagirath, AIR 1953 Nag 218, 219. Or at any time afterwards. The words 'or at any time afterwards' in S. 164 Cr PC obviously denote that if the confession was not made in the course of the investigation, then it must be made at any time afterwards but before the enquiry or trial commenced. If there has been no investigation at all, then the question 'or at any time afterwards' does not arise. Rishi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 Pat
425. Or is otherwise invalid. The expression 'or is otherwise invalid in S. 30(c) Arbitration Act, 1940
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 covers all objections to an award on the ground of invalidity from any cause whatsoever and does not refer to the in-validity of the kind referred to in the preceding clauses of the section. Ismail v. Hansraj, AIR 1955 Raj 153.
Or for any other purpose'. Even where the duty has been fully paid and only the signature of Excise Inspec-tor to the pro-forma and signature on gate passed to speed the movements of goods, bribes are paid not only to get unlawful things done but to get lawful things done promptly connotes 'for any other purpose. Som Prakash v. State of Delhi. AIR 1974 SC 989. [Evidence Act (1972), Sec. 161] "Or in future." See 27 Mad 348.
"Or other proceeding." See 9 C. 397; 53 PR 1883.
"Or otherwise." The words "or otherwise" in Article 111 of the China and Corea Order in Council, 1904, must at least include the operation of other Statutes, Imperial or Indian, applicable to the person in question. [(1914) 1 LW 989 (994)=18 CWN 705-23 IC 678=15 Cr LJ 326-(194) AC 599-4 Cr. LR 275-3 Con. LR 187.
"OR OTHERWISE". The expression "or otherwise" in S. 22 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 (VIII of 1885) means "or in a similar way", 2 CLJ 570;
must be construed ejusdem generis. See 8 CLJ 324-13 CWN 32-1 Ind Cas 155: See also 10 Bom LR 92-7 Cr LJ 118.
The word "or" in "or otherwise" is a disjunctive that marks an alternative which generally corresponds to the word "either". An interpretation of the general words "or otherwise" limiting them to the matters and things of the some kind as the previous words would make the general words "or
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 otherwise" following the preceding specific words, redundant. These words "or otherwise are not words of limitation, but of extension so as to cover all possible ways in which title may vest in the land in the unauthorised occupation of the person con- cerned. Chotanagpur Banking Association Ltd. v. Government of India, AIR 1957 Pat 666, 669, 670,
671. [Bihar Land Encroachment Act. 31 of 1958, S. 2(ii)(e)] The Legislature, when it used the words 'or otherwise'. apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preuding clauses. The rule of ejusdem generis is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature. Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 521.528.529.[Bombay Land Requisition Act 33 of 1948, S. 6 Expl. (a)) Expression covers all the other Directors who for one bhaja reason or the other cease to hold office and are imme diately thereafter re-appointed as directors, Lali C. Kapadia v, Laliji B. Desai, AIR 1972 Bem 276,294 Companies Act. Sec. 264(1)] "Or the like" The words "or the like" in S. 23(4) Bengal Tenancy Act (X of 1859), must be taken es dem generis with the rights spoken of previously, (28 C. 485-5 CWN 840.) 'Or the survivors". The effect of the words "or the survivors or survivor of them" (in a will) was, in the circumstances of the case, held to take the case out of the ordinary rule that a legacy lapses where the legatee dies during the lifetime of the testator (26 M. 433) Or within the State. The words or within that State in Art. 304 elucidate the words 'throughout the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 territory of India" in Art. 301 meaning that the freedom of trade. declared in Art. 301 is the freedom not only between one State and another, but also between different parts of the same state. State v. Philipose Philip. AT R 1954 TC 257. [Constitution of India, Arts. 301 and 304) 3.6. By referring to the said definition, he submits that when the word "or" is used, the same is a disjunctive and is referred to in the alternative and as such he submits that the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha cannot be read together but would have to be read separately in the alternative to each other. His submission is also that, if the said definition as contending in the law lexicon is applied then separate notices have to be issued to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as contended earlier. 3.7. He relies on contemporary English grammar by Jayanthi Dakshinamurthy, more particularly Chapter 26 thereof, relating to conjunction and submits that there are four different types of conjunctions viz., correlative conjunctions,
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 compound conjunctions, coordinating conjunction and subordinating conjunction. 3.8. Insofar as the usage under Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the various Rules contained in Rules of 1994, the word "and" has not been used and it only if the word "and" had been used, then a single requisition notice could have been issued under Form No.1. Since the word "and" has not been used i.e., a conjunctive word has not been used, there being an alternative disjunctive in terms of the word "or" used, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha have to be read separately and he once again reiterates that all the actions would have to be taken separately.
3.9. On that basis, he submits that the requisition notice being required to be quashed, all other further actions taken in pursuance thereof would also have to be quashed.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025
4. Sri.Abhishek L. Kallad., learned counsel who has filed caveat for respondent No.3 and has accepted notice for respondents No.4 to 14 submits that; 4.1. The petitioners are only seeking to prolong their stay at the office of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
4.2. Requisition notice which had been moved once earlier was quashed by this Court on account of the said notice containing an endorsement and signature of the PDO, the same being contrary to the decision of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Sanganna Biradar's case.
4.3. This is the second time a notice of requisition has been moved and once again a pedantic argument is sought to be advanced, trying to give an interpretation of the word "or" which is not the correct interpretation. 4.4. His submission is that this Court would have to apply the Rule of Mischief in order to interpret
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 the provision. Section 49 having been introduced in order to provide a right to the members of the Gram Panchayat to move a notice for No Confidence. The said right being a democratic right, this court ought to give meaning and purport to said Rule and not interpret it in a pedantic manner to take away the rights vested with the other members of the Gram Panchayat.
4.5. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of Seven Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa1, more particularly Para 17 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for reference;
17. Lord Denning has stated the Judge's task in reading the meaning of enactments:
"The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much poorer if it were.... He must set to work in the constructive task of finding the intention of 1 (1978) 2 SCC 213
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 Parliament, and he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature.... A Judge should ask himself the question, how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this rock in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases."
The duty of the Court is to interpret the words that the Legislature has used; those words may be ambiguous, but, even if they are, the power and duty of the Court to travel outside them on a voyage of discovery are strictly limited." 4.6. His submission is that this Court ought to interpret the words that the legislature has used in a manner to give meaning to the said words by taking into account the social conditions which gave rise to it and the mischief which it was to remedy.
4.7. His submission is further that this Court is required to give force and life to the intention of the legislature while interpreting the aforesaid provisions. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in British Airways Plc.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 v. Union of India2, more particularly Para 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
8. While interpreting a statute the court should try to sustain its validity and give such meaning to the provisions which advance the object sought to be achieved by the enactment. The court cannot approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting which make its working impossible. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing the different provisions so that each provision will have its play and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect shall be given to all the provisions and for that any provision of the statute should be construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make it workable. A particular provision cannot be picked up and interpreted to defeat another provision made in that behalf under the statute. It is the duty of the court to make such construction of a statute which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. While interpreting a statute the courts are required to keep in mind the consequences which are likely to flow upon the intended interpretation. 4.8. By relying on British Airways case is that this Court should try to sustain the validity and give meaning to the provision of the Act, so as to advance the objects ought to be achieved by 2 (2002) 2 SCC 95
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 the enactment rather than to pick holes or to search for defects, making the working of the statute impossible. In that background, he submits that the usage of the word "or" cannot be interpreted in such a manner that it requires two separate notices, when the intention of the members of the Gram Panchayat is common in respect of both Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha to move a notice of No Confidence against both of them.
4.9. On the other basis, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed and a meeting permitted to go on.
5. Heard Sri.Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.M.Khannur., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Vijaykumar Balagerimath., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri.Abhishek L.Kallad., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 14. Perused papers.
6. The points that would arise for consideration are;
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025
1. Whether the usage of the word "or" in Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1994 is disjunctive in such a manner as requiring a notice in Form No.1 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately and thereafter notice in Form No.2 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately, as also for a separate meeting to be conducted for considering the motion for No Confidence separately in respect of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha?
2. Whether the actions taken by the members of the Gram Panchayat and that of the Assistant Commissioner suffer any legal infirmity requiring intervention at the hands of this Court?
3. What order?
7. I answer the above points as under:
8. Answer to point No.1: Whether the usage of the word "or" in Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1994 is disjunctive in such a manner as requiring a notice in Form No.1 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately and thereafter notice in Form No.2 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately, as also for a separate meeting to be conducted for considering the motion for No Confidence separately in respect of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha?
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 8.1. The vehement submission of Sri. Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the word "or" has to be given its true grammatical meaning and when such a meaning is given, it would require two separate requisition notices under Form No.1, two separate notices of meeting under Form No.2 and two separate meetings in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 as also Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3. 8.2. Section 49 is reproduced here under for easy reference;
49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.
- Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within one year from the date of his election:
Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, within one year from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat.
8.3. The heading of Section 49 would indicate that the section relates to a motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat, it is stated that every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence is passed.
8.4. The second provisio to Sub-section (1) would indicate that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall be moved within the first 15 months.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 8.5. Third provisio indicates that resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, if has been considered and negatived by the Gram Panchayat, a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be moved for another six months from the date of the decision of the Gram Panchayat. 8.6. It is because of the usage of the word "or"
between the word Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha that Sri. Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is disjunctive and separate actions have to be taken. 8.7. Though references have been made to the definition of "or" in the law lexicon, those are relating to completely different and alternative items.
8.8. In the present case, there is an Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha for every Gram Panchayat, that is to say that the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 are not in the alternative, but both the posts are available in any Gram Panchayat. It is for that reason that Section 49 provides for a motion of no-confidence to be moved against either the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. It does not however restrict a notice of no-confidence to be moved against both the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha.
8.9. The right being vested with the Gram Panchayat members to move a motion of no- confidence against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha would also include a right to move a motion of no-confidence against both the Adhyaksha and the Upadhyaksha. The permutation and combination in which the members of the Gram Panchayat may act would vary in terms of the members of the Gram Panchayat and against whom they want to move a no-confidence motion. Whether it is
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 only against the Adhyaksha or only against the Upadhyaksha or as regards both of them. 8.10. If the argument of Sri.Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel were to be tested by using a conjunctive word "and" Section 49 would read as under, with emphasis supplied for the substituted word "and".
49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.
- Every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:
Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, shall be moved within one year from the date of his election:
Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha shall not be
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 given notice of, or moved, within one year from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. 8.11. Now, if Section 49 were to be read with he word "or" being replaced by the word "and", then a resolution will be required to be moved against both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha jointly. That is to say, that a resolution cannot be moved against the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha separately, but the members of the Gram Panchayat would be perforce constrained to move a common motion as against both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, whether they want to move such a motion against both of them or not.
8.12. In my considered opinion that is not the purport of Section 49 of the Act of 1993. The Act provides the option to the members of the Gram Panchayat to move a motion of no-
confidence as observed earlier against either the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or against both
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 of them. Merely because the disjunctive word "or" is used would not mean that a common motion cannot be moved against both the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. If the conjunctive word is replaced as contended by Mr Kolli, the same would militate against the very object of the said provision, making the whole object redundant and negate the object. 8.13. Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion Of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha Of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference
3. Motion of No-confidence :- (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to S.49 OF THE Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act,1993 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.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting 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
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 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.
(3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
(a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or
(b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Grama Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or
(c) by registered posts; or
(d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing such notice on some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business within the Grama panchayat.
(4) The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat. The Assistant Commissioner shall preside at such meeting.
Explanation. For determination of two third of total number of members under this sub-rule any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. (5) Save as otherwise provided in the Act or these rules, a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under sub-rule (2) shall not for any reason be adjourned.
(6) If there is no quorum, within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub-rule (1) shall lapse.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 (7) As soon as the meeting convened and sub-rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. (8) The Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon.
(9) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat, the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, shall forthwith cease to function as such and the Assistant Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, notify such cessation on the notice board of the office of the Grama Panchayat and also inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, regarding such cessation, if he is not present at the meeting.
(10) After the cessation is notified under sub-rule (9) the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be shall, immediately hand over all documents, moneys or other properties of the Grama Panchayat in his custody to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. (11) The election to the office of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be held until the notification under sub-rule (9) removing the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, as the case may be, is published. 8.14. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 only speaks of a written notice of intention to make a motion in terms of the proviso to Section 49 in Form No.1, there is neither the word Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha used in the said Rule. Similar is the case with
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 which enables the Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat.
8.15. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 requires a notice in Form No.2 to be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The usage of the word "and" in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 would indicate that if a notice convening a meeting to consider a notice of no-confidence is to be issued in Form No.2, then the said notice shall be on every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and not only as regard the person against whom it is being moved i.e., the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. The legislature has therefore consciously used the word "and" in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, similarly the legislature has consciously used the word "or" in Section 49 as aforesaid.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 8.16. Sub-rule (5) does not make any usage of the word Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha but only provides for a meeting to be convened for the purpose of consideration of motion shall not be adjourned.
8.17. Sub-rule (6) provides that if there is no quorum within one hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved, and notice given under Sub-rule (1) shall lapse. Again, in either both Sub-rule (5) and Sub-rule (6) the word Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha are not used but only reference is made to the notice.
8.18. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 provides for a motion to be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of the members of Gram Panchayat, then the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be shall forthwith cease to function as such and further provides for the Assistant Commissioner to
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 inform the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be regarding such resolution. 8.18.1. Meaning can be gathered from Sub-rule (9) to indicate that a motion for no confidence if moved against the Adhyaksha only and be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of the members of Gram Panchayat, then he shall cease to function as Adhyaksha and further provides for the Assistant Commissioner to inform the Adhyaksha regarding such resolution if the Adhyaksha was not present at the meeting.
8.18.2. If a motion for no confidence is moved against the Upadhyaksha only and be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of the members of Gram Panchayat, then the Upadhyaksha
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 shall cease to function as the Upadhyaksha and further provides for the Assistant Commissioner to inform the Upadhyaksha regarding such resolution if the upadhyaksha was not present at the meeting.
8.18.3. There is no embargo under Sub-rule (9) of Rule 3 that a motion for no confidence cannot be moved against both Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, If a motion for no confidence is moved against both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and be carried by a majority of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of the members of Gram Panchayat, then the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha shall cease to function as the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively and both of them would have to be informed by the Assistant Commissioner of the same to the
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha who were not present at the meeting.
8.19. In that view of the matter, it is clear that Section 49 providing a valuable democratic right to the members of Gram Panchayat to move a notice for no-confidence in form 1 against either the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, it is at the discretion of the Gram Panchayat members to move the said motion against either the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or both of them.
8.20. Coming to the second argument of Sri. Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3, if there is no quorum within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under Sub-rule (1) shall lapse, meaning thereby to indicate that if at the beginning of the meeting
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 the motion for no-confidence against the Adhyaksha is taken up and the discussion were to last for more than one hour, then the second notice would automatically lapse is again a pedantic argument which has been advanced. 8.21. The Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 only provides for quorum not to be present within one hour and does not provide for a meeting not being conducted within one hour. Both the meetings scheduled at 11.00 a.m. notices having been issued, if it is only if there is no quorum as required, then Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 would be applicable. If the quorum is there for consideration of the motion of no confidence against one of the office bearers, the said quorum would continue for the next meeting. 8.22. If at all there is no quorum this aspect would continue for the next meeting since both the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 meetings are proposed to be held at the same time at the same venue. Thus, what Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 deals with is not the time taken for conduct of the meeting but the presence of the quorum at the beginning of the meeting, as rightly contended by Sri.Abhishek L. Kalled., learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 14 this argument is a premature argument since the meeting is proposed to be held on 3.3.2025, it is the outcome of the said meeting and the quorum present at the said meeting which would have to be considered for appreciating the argument under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3. 8.23. Be that as it may, what this Court would have to opine at present is that Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 would relate to the quorum at the beginning of the meeting and not the time at which the notice of no confidence is taken up.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 8.24. What would have to be looked at are sub-rules (7) and (8) of Rule 3, Sub rule (7) provides for as soon as the meeting convened under sub- rule (2) commences the Assistant Commissioner shall read to the members of the Grama Panchayat, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate, thus it is only the motion which is to be read and there shall be no debate on the same, hence the contention of Shri Anand R Kolli that a debate on the motion would take time is not countenanced by sub-Rule (7) to Rule 3, there being no debate which is permissible. 8.25. Sub Rule (8) provides that even the Assistant Commissioner shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon, thus the Assistant commissioner is only to read the motion and not to speak on it,
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 which would also indicate that there would be no further time spent on this.
8.26. Coming back to the facts of the matter, a common notice has been issued under Form No.1 by more than one-half of the members as required under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 49. Thus, it satisfies the requirement thereof, merely because a common requisition has been made for both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, the same does not fall foul of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act of 1993 or the Rules of 1994. 8.27. The notice issued in Form No.2 by the Assistant Commissioner is not a common notice but is a separate notice. The one at Annexure-C is in respect of the Adhyaksha. The one at Annexure-D is in respect of Upadhyaksha. The Assistant Commissioner, in my considerable opinion, could have issued a common notice
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 convening the meeting on the basis of a common requisition notice. The issuance of separate notice or common notice would not make any difference in so far as Form No.2 in that regard is concerned.
8.28. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the members of the Grama Panchayat together moving a motion for no-confidence against both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha cannot be said to be contrary to the applicable law.
8.29. In that view of the matter I Answer point No.1 by holding that the usage of the word "or" in Section 49 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1994 is not disjunctive in such a manner as requiring a notice in Form No.1 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately and thereafter
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 notice in Form No.2 to be issued to the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately, as also for a separate meeting to be conducted for considering the motion for No Confidence separately in respect of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
8.30. It is for the members of the Grama
Panchayat to move motion of no
confidence against the Adhyaksha or
Upadhyaksha individually, separately or together/jointly.
8.31. Such a motion for no confidence can be moved under a single Form No.1 in so far as Adhyaksha is concerned if moved against the Adhyaksha alone. Similarly, a motion for no confidence can be moved under a single Form No.1 in so far as Upadhyaksha is concerned if moved
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 against the Upadhyaksha alone. If such a motion for no confidence is moved against both Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, the same can be under a single Form No.1 or at the discretion of the members of the Grama panchayat by two separate Form No.1's one each for the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.
8.32. The Assistant Commissioner can on the basis of the motion for no confidence moved, can either issue a single notice in Form No.2 to the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha if such notice of no confidence is moved against either of them or issue a single notice under Form No.2 as against both of them if a common motion for no confidence is moved. Even if a common motion for no confidence is moved against both Adhyaksha and
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 Upadhyaksha in Form No.1 the Assistant Commissioner can issue a single notice under Form No.2 as against both of them or issue separate notices in From No.2 as regards the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha separately. Needless to say, such notice in Form No.2 would also have to be served on all other members of the Grama Panchayat.
9. Answer to point No.2: Whether the actions taken by the members of the Gram Panchayat and that of the Assistant Commissioner suffer any legal infirmity requiring intervention at the hands of this Court?
9.1. In view of my finding on Point No.1, a common notice issued by the members of the Grama Panchayat in Form No.1 as regards both Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha is proper and correct.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3625 WP No. 101344 of 2025 9.2. Separate notices issued by the Assistant Commission in From No.2 in Annexure- C and D which are impugned in these proceedings are also proper and in accordance with law. 9.3. In view thereof there would be no requirement for this Court to intercede as regards such proper actions.
10. Answer to point No.3: What order?
The petition making out no grounds stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41