Smt Honnamma W/O Hanamanthappa Sannagoudra Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVANAPPA BANGARI 2. AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: VICE PRESIDENT, GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL. PIN 583239.

¶19

SMT. SHIVAMMA YAMANAPPA CHIGARI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶20

SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA YEELUGUDDA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶21

SMT. HANUMAVVA DURGAPPA HARIJAN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶22

SRI. OMANNA MAHADEVAPPA CHANNADASAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶24

YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶25

SRI. DURGAPPA YELLAPPA PYATIHAL AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶26

SMT. HANUMAVVA HANUMANTAPPA YEMMI AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶27

SMT. NINGAVVA FAKIRAPPA MADAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶28

SRI. YENKAPPA YELLAPPA WADDER AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL,

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶30

R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶31

SRI. HANUMANTAPPA AGARAPPA TARALKATTI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶32

SMT.NAGAMMA NEERUPADAPPA HANUMANAL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶33

SMT. BASAVVA RAMANNA POLICE AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶34

SRI. DURGAPPA RAMANNA BAPPAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA,

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶36

TQ. DIST. KOPPAL,

¶37

PIN 583237.

¶38

SMT. SHANTAVVA DURGAPPA WADDER AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237. 15. SMT. DEVEGOUDA YENKANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶39

SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O HANUMANTAPPA KAMBALI AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶40

SMT. DEVAVVA W/O KAMANNA HOSAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA,

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶42

TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶43

SRI. HANUMANTAPPA SHANKARGOUDA WALMIKI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶44

SRI. MUTTANNA S/O DIGAMBARGOUDA MALIPATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA TQ, DIST. KOPPAL, R/O. GANADAHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, YELBURGA, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN 583237.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1; SRI. H.N. GULARADDI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R19)

¶47

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 03.01.2025 BEARING NO.SANKE.KANDAYA.CHUNAVANE.AA.GO. 05: 2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF ADHYAKSHA (PETITIONER NO.1) VIDE ANNEXURE-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶48

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

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

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

¶51

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶52

following reliefs:

¶53

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 03.01.2025 bearing No.

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶55

SANKE.KANDAYA.CHUNAVANE.AA.GO. 05: 2024-25 issued by the R1 authority in respect of Adhyaksha (Petitioner No.1) vide Annexure-J in the interest of justice and equity.

¶56

b. Issue a writ of nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 03.01.2025 bearing No. SANKE.KANDAYA.CHUNAVANE.AA.GO. 05: 2024-25 issued by the R1 authority in respect of Upadhyaksha (Petitioner No.2) vide Annexure-J in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

c. 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.

¶58

Petitioner No.1 is the Adhyaksha and Petitioner No.2 is the Upadhyaksha of the Ganadahal Gram Panchayat. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notice issued by Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner dated 3.1.2025 fixing the date of the meeting of No-Confidence motion against the petitioners on 18.1.2025.

¶59

The submission of Sri.Anand Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that

¶60

3.1. Once earlier a notice had been issued on 21.12.2024 fixing the date of meeting of No

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶62

confidence motion against the petitioners as

¶63

7.1.2025. The said notice having been issued

¶64

in terms of Form II in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘Rules of 1994), there was no meeting which was conducted on 7.1.2025 and as such, a fresh notice could not have been issued on 3.1.2025 fixing the date of meeting as 18.1.2025.

¶65

3.2. By relying on Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3 of Rules of

¶66

1994, he submits that when a meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration of a motion under Sub-Rule (2), it shall not for

¶67

any reason be adjourned and in the event of an adjournment, then no such meeting can be called for, for a period of six months from that date and as such, the second notice which has been issued is improper.

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶69

3.3. An application having been filed with the

¶70

Assistant Commissioner's Office, a certified copy of Form-I has been furnished which indicates that the said certified copy contains the writing, seal and signature of the Panchayat Development Officer and as such, the same being contrary to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sangan Gowda N.Biradaar and anr vs. Principal Secretary of Panchayath and ors¹ , necessary action would have to be taken on that by quashing it.

¶71

Sri.V.S.Kalsurmath, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that

¶72

4.1. insofar as the notice which has been issued on 21.12.2024, fixing the date of meeting as 7.1.2025, the same has not been acted upon. The meeting never took place. None of the

¶73

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

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶75

Panchayat members came to the Panchayat Office, since they had been informed about the cancellation of the meeting.

¶76

4.2. It is thereafter that on receipt of another requisition in Form-I from the Gram Panchayat members on 24.12.2024 that the notice dated

¶77

3.1.2025 was issued, fixing the date of meeting as 18.1.2025.

¶78

4.3. He therefore submits that the meeting having not taken place, the question of adjourning a meeting and/or the motion having not gone through would not arise. On the basis of the fresh requisition, a subsequent notice on 3.1.2025 has been issued which cannot be found fault with.

¶79

4.4. As regards the certified copy, he submits that initially the Panchayat members had approached with Form-I with the writing, seal and signature of the PDO, the Assistant Commissioner in view of the various directions

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶81

which have been issued by this Court from time to time in different matters had called upon the Panchayat members to furnish a requisition without any writing, seal or signature of the PDO.

¶82

4.5. It is in furtherance thereof that the requisition subject matter of the above matter at Annexures-H and H1 which do not bear any writing, seal or signature of the PDO were submitted and acting on the same, the notice in Form-II was issued on 3.1.2025. Since an earlier requisition had been submitted bearing the writing, seal and signature of the PDO, two separate files have been maintained. Explaining this, the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal has been filed and as such, he submitted that there is nothing wrong in the notice which has been issued fixing the date of the meeting.

¶83

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶84

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶85

perused papers.

¶86

The points that would arise for consideration in the present matter are:

¶87

1. When once a notice has been issued in FormII in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, could the said notice be cancelled or withdrawn?

¶88

1. Whether despite there being no power to cancel or withdraw a notice issued in FormII, could the Gram Panchayat members be prevented from submitting a fresh requisition in Form-I in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994?

¶89

1. Whether a subsequent requisition in Form-I which does not bear the writing, seal, signature of the PDO can be considered for issuance of notice in Form-II even though there is another requisition which had been submitted bearing the sign, seal and signature of the PDO?

¶90

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶91

4) What order?

¶92

Answer to Point No.1: When once a notice has been issued in Form-II in pursuance of SubRule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, could the said notice be cancelled or withdrawn?

¶93

and

¶94

Answer to Point No.2: Whether despite there being no power to cancel or withdraw a notice issued in Form-II, could the Gram Panchayat members be prevented from submitting a fresh requisition in Form-I in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994?

¶95

8.1. In the present matter, the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as there was a notice which had been issued on 21.12.2024 in Form-II fixing the date of meeting as 7.1.2025. Before the said date, on 23.12.2024 itself, the Assistant Commissioner had cancelled the meeting scheduled to take place on 7.1.2025 which was informed to the members of the Gram Panchayat.

¶96

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶97

8.2. Though an office order dated 23.12.2024 has

¶98

been passed, there are no particular reasons which are found in the said office order which would support the cancellation of the meeting to be held on 7.1.2025 and the recall of the notice dated 21.12.2024. The submission of

¶99

Sri.Anand Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners is also that the said order had not been communicated to the petitioners.

¶100

8.3. A perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 which relates to the procedure to be followed while holding a meeting does not provide for cancellation of a meeting scheduled to take place. In fact, in terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 3, there is a clear interdict that once a meeting has been convened for the purpose of considering a motion under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3, it shall not for any reason be adjourned.

¶101

8.4. This interdict in Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3 to my considerable opinion not only applies to a

¶102

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶103

meeting already convened but also as regards a meeting proposed to be convened, that is to say, a postponement or adjournment of the meeting after convening the meeting or even prior to the convening of the meeting is not permissible in terms of Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 3.

¶104

8.5. Once a meeting has been convened under SubRule (2) of Rule 3, the said meeting is required to go on since Rules do not provide for the said meeting to be adjourned or postponed.

¶105

8.6. The further submission of Sri.Anand Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners is that there being no postponement or adjournment which can take place, the meeting not having been held in terms of Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 3, the notice stood lapsed and as per proviso (3) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act of 1993’), it should be held that the resolution has been negatived and a similar

¶106

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶107

motion cannot be moved for a period of 6 months from the date of the said decision.

¶108

8.7. Insofar as the first submission is considered, I have dealt with the above and held that the Assistant Commissioner has no power to cancel or postpone the meeting once fixed. The Assistant Commissioner is only an executive officer and not an elected member of the Gram Panchayat. On account of any inaction or mistake on part of the Assistant Commissioner, the democratic rights of the elected representatives cannot be taken away.

¶109

8.8. The submission made by relying on Proviso (3) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of Act of 1993 that due to the postponement/adjournment made by the Assistant Commissioner, the motion is deemed to have been negatived, cannot therefore be accepted inasmuch as for the purpose of negativing the resolution, there

¶110

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶111

is required to be a meeting held and a vote made thereon.

¶112

8.9. It is only on a vote being made by the members of the Gram Panchayat and the motion not being carried by two-thirds majority, then could it be said to be negatived, attracting the rigor of Proviso (3) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of Act of 1993.

¶113

8.10.In the absence of a meeting taking place, which would obviously mean that there is no vote which has taken place, it cannot be said that either the notice has lapsed in terms of SubSection (6) of Section 3 or that in view of Proviso (3) to Sub-Section (1) of Section 49 of Act of 1993, no further resolution can be moved for a period of six months.

¶114

8.11.I answer to Point No.1 by holding that once a notice has been issued in Form-II in pursuance of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994,

¶115

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶116

the said notice can not be cancelled or withdrawn.

¶117

8.12.I answer to Point No.2 by holding that if a notice has been withdrawn by the assistant commissioner illegally or unauthorisedly the Gram Panchayat members cannot be prevented from submitting a fresh requisition in Form-I in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994?

¶118

Answer to Point No.3: Whether a subsequent requisition in Form-I which does not bear the writing, seal, signature of the PDO can be considered for issuance of notice in Form-II even though there is another requisition which had been submitted bearing the sign, seal and signature of the PDO?

¶119

9.1. The submission of Sri.Anand Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the decision in Sangan Gowda N.Biradaar’s case is that as per the certified copy of Form No-I which has been submitted, there is a writing, seal and signature of the PDO. Therefore,

¶120

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶121

applying the rigor of Sangan Gowda

¶122

N.Biradaar’s case, the entire proceedings

¶123

taken in pursuance thereto including the notice dated 3.1.2025 fixing the date of the meeting as 18.1.2025 is required to be quashed.

¶124

9.2. Learned AGA has submitted that though the first requisition was submitted with the writing seal and signature of the PDO, the same was replaced by the requisition in Form-I as produced by the petitioners themselves at Annexures-H and H1 which does not bear the

¶125

writing, seal and signature of the PDO.

¶126

9.3. Thus, what has been acted upon being Annexures-H and H1 for the purpose of issuing the notices at Annexures-J and J1, the question of the earlier requisition bearing the writing, seal and signature of the PDO would not make any difference.

¶127

9.4. The purport of the decision of the Coordinate

¶128

Bench of this Court in Sangan Gowda

¶129

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶130

N.Biradaar’s case was to ensure that there is

¶131

no interference by the PDO in respect of any requisition submitted in Form-I pursuance to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994.

¶132

9.5. In the present case, though a requisition had

¶133

been initially submitted bearing the writing, seal and signature of the PDO, when this aspect was brought to the notice of the members of the Panchayat who had submitted the requisition notice in terms of Form-I, they have submitted a fresh requisition on the very same date without the writing, seal and signature of the PDO. This requisition which has been submitted not falling in the mischief of Sangan Gowda N.Biradaar’s case and there being no other mischief which could be pointed out in relation thereto, the second requisition has been acted upon by the Assistant Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that the requisition which has been acted upon

¶134

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶135

by the Assistant Commissioner not having any writing, seal signature of the PDO is proper and correct and would not come in the mischief of

¶136

Sangan Gowda N.Biradaar’s case.

¶137

10. Answer to Point No.4: What Order:

¶138

10.1.In view of my findings above, taking into consideration that during the pendency of the above matter, the date fixed for holding the meeting being 18.1.2025 having lapsed, I pass the following:

¶139

ORDER

¶140

i) The Writ petition has become infructuous insofar as Prayers (a) and (b) are concerned by efflux of time on account of the interim order granted by this Court, the meeting not having been held.

¶141

ii) Liberty is reserved to respondents No.2-19 to submit a fresh requisition, which shall be treated as a fresh requisition by the Assistant

¶142

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3828 WP No. 100211 of 2025

¶143

Commissioner and necessary Form-II be issued

¶144

by the Assistant Commissioner within the time prescribed therein.

¶145

iii) The Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the Assistant Commissioners coming under his jurisdiction not to withdraw any notice under Form-II and/or postpone or cancel a meeting convened by issuance of Form-II. If any such action is taken in future by any particular Assistant Commissioner to take disciplinary action against such Assistant Commissioner.

¶146

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶147

PRS

¶148

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 119

Smt Honnamma W/O Hanamanthappa Sannagoudra v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Honnamma W/O Hanamanthappa Sannagoudra v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Shri Shivashankar S/O Basalingappa Madiwalar Vs N W K R T C

Prabu S Kubasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagavant Alagur Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhojaraj S/O Gangadhar Aralikatti Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Shivakrishna Mandir Vs Union of India

Dr. Deepak S/O Ramadas Vs Smt Vidya W/O Deepak Ramdas