Dismissed¶103

Smt Mahanand W/O Siddappa Melgeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025WP/100039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

no-confidence motion; Adhyaksha; Upadhyaksha; Grama Panchayat; Galagi Gram Panchayath; Kalaghatgi; Dharwad; Section 49 Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act 1993; omission of Section 49(2) by Act No.49 of 2020; Amendment Act No.44 of 2015; requisition without allegations; notice of motion; Assistant Commissioner; writ of certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; Poornima Sudhin W.P.No.50210/2018; Lakshmamma WA.No.844/2018; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

With the omission of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act with effect from 31.03.2020, there is only one category of motion of no confidence in force today; the two-category (with/without allegations) framework considered in Smt.Poornima's case and Smt.Lakshmamma's case no longer applies. ¶91

Smt Mahanand W/O Siddappa Melgeri Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether there is a requirement to mention the allegations in the requisition notice submitted by members of the council seeking for convening of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion. +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

¶91

Ratio / Principle

A motion of no confidence under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act is moved without making any allegations; consequently, there is no requirement for the requisition/notice of motion to contain reasons or allegations, and the petitioner's submission to the contrary is not sustainable.

¶98

Key takeaways

Since Sub-section (2) of Section 49 has been omitted and is no longer in the statute book, the observations in Smt.Poornima's and Smt.Lakshmamma's cases relating to notices of motion under Sub-section (2) must be eschewed, and only their observations concerning Sub-section (1) remain applicable.ratio¶96
A resolution expressing want of confidence cannot accompany the requisition/notice of motion; the resolution is passed at the meeting called upon the notice of motion. Hence failure to enclose a resolution with the requisition or the impugned notice does not invalidate the process.ratio¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Suraj Govindaraj J, 07.01.2025: The Adhyaksha of Galagi Gram Panchayath sought certiorari quashing the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad's notice dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-M) convening a panchayat meeting on 18.01.2025 to consider a requisition (Annexure-L, dated 24.12.2024) by Respondents 3-17 to move a no-confidence resolution. Held: following omission of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (inserted by Amendment Act No.44 of 2015, effective 25.02.2016; omitted by Act No.49 of 2020, effective 31.03.2020), only one category of no-confidence motion exists; a motion under Sub-section (1) is moved without allegations, so neither the requisition nor the notice need state reasons or allegations. The observations in Smt.Poornima (W.P. 50210/2018) and Smt.Lakshmamma (W.A. 844/2018) apply only qua Section 49(1); their Section 49(2) observations are to be eschewed. A proposed resolution cannot be required to accompany the requisition/notice, as it results from the meeting convened. Both contentions rejected; petition dismissed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100039 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MAHANAND W/O. SIDDAPPA MELGERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, PRESIDENT OF THE GALAGI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDENT OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALUK: KALAGHATGI, POST: HULKOPPA, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580118.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶14

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580 001.

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580118.

¶18

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. DAYAMANNA BADNIGATTI, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶19

SHRI. SOMANINGA S/O. NINGAPPA KYARWAD, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 41 YEAR, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶21

SMT. MAHADEVEI W/O. MAHADEVE KELGERI, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,

¶22

SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. FAKIRAPPA TALWAR, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,

¶23

SHRI. NINGARAJ S/O. DANAPPA MADAR, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶24

SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. MARUTI CHETTANNAVAR, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,

¶25

SMT. ROSHANABI W/O. BASHESAB KALKERI, MEMBER OF GALAGI PANCHYAT, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,

¶26

SHRI. VITTAL S/O. SHEKARAPPA JADHAV, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶27

SHRI. SADIQ S/O. LATIFSAB HEBBAL, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶28

SHRI. MOHAMMADALI S/O. ABDULSAB KHATAL, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,

¶29

SHRI. NAGRAJ S/O. P. RAMPUR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT,

¶30

SMT. YELLAVVA W/O. YELLAPPA DOLLIN AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT,

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶32

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 15 ARE RESIDENTS OF GALAGI HULAKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATGI, POST: HULAKOPPA, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 580 118.

¶33

SMT. BASAVVA W/O. GANGAPPA LAKAMAPUR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT,

¶34

SMT. MANJULA W/O. BEERAPPA KURBAR, MEMBER OF GALAGI GRAM PANCHYAT, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD,

¶35

RESPONDENTS 16 AND 17 ARE RESIDENTS OF HASARAMBI, TQ: KALAGHATGI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 580 118.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. M.B. PUJAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4-R17 DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO. KR/SAM/CHUNAVANE/AA.AA.SU/C.AAR.174/202425 DATED 30/12/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M; PASS ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶44

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief:

¶45

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ Order or direction to Quash the Notice No. kr/ sam/Chunavane/aa.aa.su/c.aar.174/2024-25 dated 30/12/2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the copy of which has been produced at ANNEXURE-M.

¶46

b) Pass any other Writ, Order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case and allow the Writ Petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.

¶47

The petitioner claims to be the Adhyaksha of Galagi Gram Panchayath elected from Ward No.3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the notice dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, calling for a meeting on 18.01.2025 at 10.30 am, to consider the requisition submitted by respondents No.3 to 17, to move a resolution expressing no confidence with the petitioner’s performance as Adhyaksha.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶49

The submission of Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that;

¶50

3.1. No reasons based on which the no-confidence motion is proposed to be moved, have been mentioned in the requisition dated 24.12.2024 at Annexure-L, as required under Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’, for short).

¶51

3.2. Secondly, a copy of the resolution in relation thereto has not been enclosed either along with the requisition or along with the impugned notice dated 30.12.2024.

¶52

3.3. In this regard, Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi relies upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Poornima Sudhin W/o. Sudhin Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others dated 15.12.2018 in W.P.No.50210/2018, more particularly

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶55

paragraphs 15, 16 and 21 thereof, which are

¶56

reproduced herein for easy reference:

¶57

15. In the present facts, the members moving the motion have not mentioned under which provision they are Issuing notice of motion of no-confidence. Accordingly, in such cases, it would fall to the Assistant Commissioner to make a very cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and determine as to whether the said motion of no-confidence is one under Section 49 (1) (without allegations) or 49 (2) [with allegations] of the Act and proceed.

¶58

16. It is clear that if the legislature had intended that there were two categories of motion of no confidence, the Assistant Commissioner would only have to decide on the basis of a bare perusal of the complaint as to which category the motion of no confidence would belong to. If it were to be one under Section 49 (1) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner has to proceed with the same as per the Rules framed, and on the other hand, if it were to be a motion of no confidence that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act, he will have no discretion to proceed with such resolution till Rules are framed providing for procedure to be adopted as regards such matters of motion of no confidence as observed by the Division Bench in Lakshmamma's case (supra).

¶59

21. The observation as regards the consequence on the motions of noconfidence as referred to in para 48 of the Division Bench judgment must be construed to be applicable as regards

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶62

motion of no-confidence moved under Section 49 (2) of the Act which were pending consideration as on the date of passing of the order in the Division Bench and cannot be construed to be applicable as regards motion of noconfidence that were to be moved with allegations, i.e., those falling under Section 49 (2) of the Act, even after the judgment of the Division Bench. Hence, it is clear that it is not possible to treat a petition filed under Section 49 (2) after the disposal of W.A.No.844/2018 as one under Section 49 (1) of the Act.

¶63

3.4. By relying on the same, he submits that, whenever any requisition for a meeting to consider a resolution for no-confidence is made, the details and the basis on which noconfidence is sought for are required to be mentioned, the non-mentioning of it would result in invalidity of the said notices, thereby entitling this Court to take necessary action in relation thereto.

¶64

3.5. Thus, both the notice and the requisition are required to be quashed.

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶67

Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA for the respondents, submits that;

¶68

4.1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Act, relied upon by the petitioner, has been omitted with effect from 31.03.2020, and therefore, the order dated 15.12.2018 in Poornima’s case (supra), which was passed on 15.12.2018 after the introduction of Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Act on 25.02.2016, before the same was omitted on 31.03.2020, would not be applicable to the present case.

¶69

4.2. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, at present, a requisition for a meeting has been submitted, acting upon which, the Assistant Commissioner has called for a meeting on 18.01.2025. It is for the Council to decide on that date as to what resolution has to be passed.

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶71

4.3. Therefore, the question of enclosing a resolution along with the requisition notice would not arise.

¶72

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.

¶73

The short but important question that would arise for consideration is;

¶74

“Whether there is a requirement to mention the allegations in the requisition notice submitted by members of the council seeking for convening of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion?

¶75

Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as on date is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶76

49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.

¶77

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

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶79

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:

¶80

Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution:

¶81

Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved [within the first thirty months] from the date of his election:

¶82

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 two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat.

¶83

Prior to 31.03.2020 there was Sub-section (2) to

¶84

Section 49 of the Act which is available in the statute book, which reads as under:

¶85

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved except on specific allegation of misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of

¶86

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶87

the panchayat or of misappropriating funds or other assets of the panchayat during the term of his membership or otherwise indulging in corruption or misconduct in the course of exercising his functions.

¶88

The said Sub-section (2) had been inserted by Amendment Act No.44 of 2015 with effect from 25.02.2016 and continued on statute book until 31.03.2020 and came to be omitted by Act No.49 of 2020. It is taking into account both Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act this Court in the case of Smt.Poornima’s by referring to the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (WA.No.844/2018 and connected matters) held that when a motion for no confidence is moved, it would be the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to make a cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and to determine as to whether the said motion of no confidence is one under Sub-section (1) of Section 49

¶89

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶90

of the Act (without allegations) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act (with allegations) and in furtherance thereof held that the legislature had intended that there were two categories of motions of no confidence.

¶91

If such a motion was moved under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner had to proceed with the same as per the Rules framed. If the said motion was moved under Subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner would have to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by cursory examination.

¶92

In the present case, as referred to supra Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted with effect from 31.03.2020. Thus as on date there is only one category of the motion of no confidence and as on date there are no two categories which were dealt with in Smt.Poornima’s case and in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case.

¶93

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶94

Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act envisages a motion of no confidence being moved without making any allegations. If that be so, there would be no requirement of notice of motion to contain any allegations.

¶95

Smt.Poornima’s case and in Smt.Lakshmamma’s

¶96

case categorically made out the distinction between no confidence motion of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act and that under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act. Now that Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted, the observations made in the above said Judgements in so far as Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act would only be applicable and the observations made in regard to a notice of motion and Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act would have to be eschewed since the said Subsection (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted and no longer available in the statute book.

¶97

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶98

Even as held by the coordinate bench of this Court in Smt.Poornima’s case and the Hon’ble Division Bench in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case a notice of motion under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act is one without allegation and as such no allegations are required to be mentioned in the notice of motion. In that view of the matter, the submission made by learned counsel Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi that even a motion under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act requires reasons and allegations is not sustainable.

¶99

As regards the second contention that a resolution has not been enclosed along with the notice of motion. The said submission would be putting the cart before the horse. The notice of motion has been moved to call for a meeting of the gram panchayath, where a resolution would be passed and not before.

¶100

Acting on the said notice of motion, the Assistant Commissioner has called for the meeting of the gram Panchayath on 18.01.2025 at 10:30 a.m. This notice

¶101

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:184 WP No. 100039 of 2025

¶102

of motion would be considered in the said meeting and resolution passed. Thus a resolution cannot accompany a notice of motion, but is a consequence of notice being moved and meeting held. In that view of the matter, the second contention of learned counsel Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi also stands rejected.

¶103

No grounds being made out, petition stands dismissed.

¶104

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶105

gab – upto para 7 CKK – para 8 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Mahanand W/O Siddappa Melgeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mahanand W/O Siddappa Melgeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. B.D.S. Ginning Vs the Director

Suryakant S Choukanpalli, Vs Karnataka State Tourism Development

Suryakant S Choukanpalli, Vs Karnataka State Tourism Development

Kudleppa S/O Veerasangappa Chittaragi Vs Mahantesh S/O Nandayya Hiremath

Smt.Irawwa Vs Smt.Indirabai

Smt Marembi D/O Vs the Assistant Director