Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 100107 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PUNDALIK S/O FAKKIRAPPA UPPAR AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. PRESIDENT OF MADLUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. MADLUR, TALUK. YARAGATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI 591126

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI

¶17

PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

¶18

BENGALURU 560001

¶19

Digitally signed byASHPAK KASHIMSAMALAGALADINNI Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.01.29 11:44:07+0530

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION BAILHONGAL DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591126.

¶21

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591126.

¶22

SRI. LAXMAN CHANNAPA HOTTENAVAR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI,

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶25

DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶26

SRI. SOMAPPA BASAPPA KALLOLLI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶27

SMT. DODDAVVA PRABHU NAGANUR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶28

SMT. LAXMI FAKIRAPPA HOTTENAVAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶29

SMT. SHIVAMMA SANGAPPA SOPADLA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶30

SMT. SANGAVVA DYAMAPPA KURI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶31

SRI. KARIYAPPA SIDDAPPA PUJAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶32

SRI. ASHOK RUDRAPPA YARAZARVI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶33

SMT. KASTURI TUKARAM BENAKATTI, AGE: 60 YEARS,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶35

OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶36

SMT. FAKIRAVVA MAHADEV HOOLI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶37

SMT. NAGAVVA MALLIKARJUN LAKKAPPANNAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶38

SMT. ANITA BASAVARAJ SUNAGAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶39

SMT. MAHADEVI SHANKAR BARKI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT MADLUR, R/O MADLUR, TALUK: YARAGATTI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI: 591126.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SRI. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1 TO R2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. COUNSEL REP SRI. JAGADISH PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R16)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE NOTICE NO. CHUNAVANE/VW/-115/2024-25 DATED. 26.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND PROCEEDINGS THERE UNDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶46

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

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

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶50

following reliefs:

¶51

a. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the Notice No. Chunavane/VW/-115/2024-25 dated: 26.12.2024 issued by the second respondent and proceedings there under vide Annexure-A.

¶52

b. A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned requisition dated 24.12.2024 submitted by the respondent No.4 to 16 vide Annexure-G.

¶53

c. Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity.

¶54

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2 having issued a notice dated 26.12.2024 fixing the date of holding meeting to consider the ‘No Confidence’ requisition submitted by respondents No.4 to 16 as 10.01.2025 at 11.00 a.m.

¶55

The submission of Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶57

notice bears the seal, signature of respondent No.3 – Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) and as such, the same is contrary to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar vs. Principal Secretary of Panchayath Karnataka¹ and in that background, he submits that the Writ Petition is required to be allowed.

¶58

Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 16 would however seek to contend that

¶59

4.1. The PDO has only identified the respondents

¶60

No.4 to 16 and there is no other action taken by the PDO and as such, the same would not come within the purview of the judgment in Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar (supra).

¶61

4.2. His submission is also that respondents No.4 to

¶62

16 had to get their signature identified from the

¶63

1 W.P.No.203171/2024 DATED 26.11.2024

¶64

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶65

PDO in view of the specific request made by the

¶66

Assistant Commissioner that without such identification he would not accept the requisition and as such, he submits that no fault can be found on part of respondents No.4 to 16 in getting their signature identified by PDO as requested and/or mandated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶67

Heard Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Gangadhar J.M., learned AAG for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 16 and perused papers.

¶68

Though it is contended by Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.4 to 16 that the identification has been got done from the PDO at the request of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶69

7 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶71

What would have to be seen is the mandate of law as

¶72

laid down by this Court in Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar (supra) wherein this Court has categoricially held that there cannot be any writing, signature and seal of the PDO on the requisition notice.

¶73

A perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules’) would indicate that for the purpose of identification, the Assistant Commissioner could correspond with Panchayath. Thus, if at all there is any issue as regards the identification of the requisitionists, it would be for the Assistant Commissioner to then correspond with the PDO to ascertain the veracity thereof as also to identity of the parties and not to insist on identification of the

¶74

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶75

requisitionist/s before he accepts the requisition notice.

¶76

Thus, even if the Assistant Commissioner had requested for the same, which has been complied with by respondents No.4 to 16, the same is contrary to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules and contrary to the dicta laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar (supra). In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The Writ Petition is allowed , a certiorari is issued.

¶79

ii) The notice dated 26.12.2024 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶80

iii) The impugned requisition dated 24.12.2024 submitted by respondents No.4 to 16 vide Annexure-G stands rejected. Liberty is

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶83

reserved to respondents No.4 to 16 to submit their fresh requisition notice.

¶84

iv) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to instruct all the Assistant Commissioners coming under his jurisdiction not to insist for any identification of the requisitionists/members by the PDO while submitting a requisition notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.

¶85

v) The Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department is directed to instruct all PDO’s coming under his jurisdiction not to make any writings, endorsement, identification etc., on a requisition notice unless and until the Assistant Commissioner were to seek for any clarification. Any violation of the above and the dicta laid down by this court in Sri Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar vs. Principal Secretary of Panchayath Karnataka (supra)

¶86

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:949 WP No. 100107 of 2025

¶87

would necessarily attract disciplinary

¶88

proceedings.

¶89

vi) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department as also the Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department are directed to forward a copy of the judgement in Sri Sangan Gouda N.Biradaar vs. Principal Secretary of Panchayath Karnataka (supra) to all Assistant Commissioners and PDO’s coming under their jurisdiction for compliance.

¶90

vii) Though the above matter is disposed relist on 14.02.2025 to report compliance with the above directions.

¶91

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶92

PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107

Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Gangotri Education Institution Vs the Ncte Appellate Authority

Fakirappa Gangappa Arolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Alagilwad Godemma W/O Alagilawad Shantappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Ramaling Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Dakshayani D/O. Ramanna Vs Sri Kumar Swami S/O. Basappa