Dismissed¶103

Sri Ramaling v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025WP/100251/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat Bailur; requisition notice by majority members without enclosed proposed motion; substantial compliance with Rule 3(1); service of notice by affixture on wall of house under Rule 3(3)(b); Form No.2; refusal by adult family member (wife); Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028; Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994; certiorari and mandamus; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The proposed motion of no-confidence is not required to be enclosed with the requisition notice, so long as the requisition notice makes the purpose and intent of moving the no-confidence motion clearly understood. ¶84

Sri Ramaling Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether the proposed motion of no-confidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice? +2 more

¶63

Court's answer

¶84

Ratio / Principle

The contents of the requisition notice (Annexure-C) constitute substantial compliance with Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3, applying the dicta of the Division Bench in Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028.

¶83

Key takeaways

On the facts, Petitioner No.1 was not found; his wife, an adult member of the family, did not accept the notice; and the affixture of the notice is borne out by the photographs produced by the petitioners themselves.ratio¶100
Affixing a notice in Form No.2 on the wall of the house of the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or a member of the Gram Panchayat, upon refusal by the adult member of the family, constitutes proper service under Rule 3(3)(b).ratio¶101

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Adhyaksha and a member of Gram Panchayat Bailur (Taluk Khanapur, Dist. Belagavi) challenging the notice dated 04/01/2025 in Election/Gra.Pam./Viva-07/2024-2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No.2) fixing a meeting on 22.01.2025 for consideration of a no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) per the Division Bench in Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028, the proposed motion of no-confidence need not be enclosed with the requisition notice; where the notice clearly discloses the intent to move the motion, non-enclosure is at most an irregularity causing no prejudice and amounts to substantial compliance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994; (ii) under Clause (B) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, where the Adhyaksha is not found and the adult member of his family (his wife) refuses to accept the notice while watching the affixture, affixing the Form No.2 notice on the wall of his house constitutes proper service.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 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. 100251 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAMALING

¶11

S/O. OMANEE MORE AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE CHAIRMAN GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR R/O. THIRTHAKUNDE, TALUK. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. PIN. 590014

¶12

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶13

GANGARAM S/O KONDIBA PATIL AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR R/O. THIRTHAKUNDE, TALUK. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. PIN. 591317.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU, PIN-560001

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI TALUK: BELAGAVI DIST: BELAGAVI-591302.

¶20

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, BAILUR AT: BAILUR TALUK: KHANAPUR DIST: BELAGAVI REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PIN-590018.

¶21

SMT.RENUKA W/O GUNDU SUTAR AGE: 45 YEARS; OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BAILUR, R/O BAILUR, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-590018.

¶22

RAVINDRA S/O GANAPAT GURAV MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O: BAILUR, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591120.

¶23

SMT. KANCHANA W/O: TUKARAM BIRJI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR R/O: BAILUR, TALUK: KHANAPUR

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶25

DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120.

¶26

VITHAL S/O SOMANNA NAKADI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BAILUR, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591120.

¶27

MILAN S/O MANOHAR KAMBALE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRIUCULTURE, MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O BAILUR, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120.

¶28

SMT. AROHI, W/O ANANT SAVANT OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O:KUSAMALLI TALUK: KHANAPUR DIST: BELAGAVI PIN-591120.

¶29

PRADEEP S/O GOPAL KOUTANAKAR AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O: DEVACHAHATTI, TALUK: KHANAPUR DIST: BELAGAVI PIN-591120.

¶30

SHAHU S/O LAXMAN PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR,

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶32

R/O UVHAVADE, TALUK: KHANAPUR DIST: BELAGAVI PIN-591120.

¶33

LAXMAN S/O YALLALPPA BANNAR AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O THIRTHAKUNDE, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI PIN-591120.

¶34

SMT. SAKKUBAI W/O BAIRU PATIL AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BAILUR, R/O KOULAPURWAD, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591120.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG & SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI. , ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R13)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED IN 04/01/2025 IN ELECTION/GRA.PAM./VIVA-07/2024-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1 AND ETC.

¶38

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

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

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

¶42

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice to Respondents No.1 and 2. Sri.V.Shivaraj Hiremath., learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.3. Sri.Rakesh S. Hattikatagi., learned counsel having filed caveat for respondent No.13 undertakes to file vakalathnamma for respondents No.4 to 13 given a week’s time.

¶43

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶44

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated in 04.01.2025 in Election/Gra.Pam/Viva-07/2024-25 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-E and E1.

¶45

b. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to permit the petitioner No.1 to continue to function as Adyaksha of the 3rd Respondent Gram Panchayat till his term expires.

¶46

c. To issue any other order, direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶47

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has accepted the

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶49

requisition notice submitted by respondents No.3 to 13 without the same being accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion and as such the said requisition notice is contrary to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and the Assistant Commissioner could not have issued a notice fixing the meeting for cancelling the no conference motion on 22.1.2025 at 12.00 PM.

¶50

The second submission of Sri.Shivaraj P.Muddol., learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the requisition notice has not been personally served on the Petitioner but has been affixed on the wall of the

¶51

house of the Petitioner without there being any attempt made to serve the same personally on the Petitioner.

¶52

His submission is that such a service of notice by affixture can only be made after having exhausted all

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶54

manner and methodology of service of notice. The respondent officials could not have directly affixed the notice on the wall without resorting to any of the above.

¶55

Sri.Gangadhar.J.M., learned AAG would submit by refereing to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka 1028 that there is no mandatory requirement for enclosing the proposed motion along with the requisition notice. So long as the requisition notice indicates the intent of moving a motion for no confidence, the same would be sufficient compliance with Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence Against Adhyaksha And Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.

¶56

Insofar as service of notice is concerned, by referring

¶57

to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3, he submits that an attempt was made to tender the notice to the

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶59

member but he not having been found, the notice was sought to be served on an adult member of his family viz., his wife. The same not having been accepted, the said notice was affixed on the wall which he submits is evidenced by the photograph produced by the petitioner himself where the wife of petitioner No.1 is seen in the said photograph while the notice is being affixed to the wall of the house of petitioner No.1 and as such he submits that the above petition does not make out any grounds and is required to be dismissed.

¶60

Heard Sri.Shivaraj P.Mudhol., learned counsel appearing 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.Rakesh S. Hattikatagi., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 13. Perused papers.

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶62

The points that would arise for consideration are;

¶63

Whether the proposed motion of Noconfidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice?

¶64

Whether affixture of the requisition notice in the presence of the adult family member of the President or the Vice President would be sufficient compliance in terms of the Clause (B) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3?

¶65

What order?

¶66

Answer to point No.1; Whether the proposed motion of no confidence is required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice?

¶67

10.1 This issue is no longer res integra the Division Bench of this Court in Laxmavva v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka

¶68

1028 at Para 10, 11 and 12 has held as under;

¶69

On perusal of the records, especially the written notice, we find that there is substantial compliance of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. In such case, mere attracting the copy of the proposed motion would be duplicity of the work and that by itself

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶71

cannot be a ground to set at not the democratic exercise of the members in functioning of these local Governments. When the notice of the majority members makes it clear their intention, mere nonenclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity and in our view does not cause any prejudice to the other side.

¶72

The learned Single Judge, in the case of Mallamma, has merely relied upon the language of Rule 3(1) and held that if the notice does not accompany (separately) the proposed motion of no-confidence, is bad in law. We do not agree with this proposition. In our view, non-compliance has to be seen in the background as to whether the same has caused any prejudice to the person aggrieved.

¶73

In the facts and circumstances of the present case and after perusal of the notice, we find that since the notice also incorporates the proposal of no-confidence motion, there is substantive compliance of the requirement of Rule 3(1) of the Rules. As such, the reliance placed by the Learned Counsel in the case of Mallamma, is of no assistance to the facts of the case.

¶74

10.2 A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would indicate that the Division Bench is categorical in terms by holding that where the requisition notice of the majority members makes clear their intention of moving a no confidence motion, mere non-enclosing of the proposal would be only an irregularity and does not

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶77

cause any prejudice to the Adhyaksha or upadhakshya.

¶78

10.3 On facts, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that since the notice also incorporates the proposal of no confidence, there is substantive compliance of the requirement of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3, applying the said dicta to the present case.

¶79

10.4 A perusal of the requisition notice produced at Annexure-C would indicate that the same has been signed by Respondents No.3 to 13 is addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, the subject would indicate that there is a proposal to move a no confidence motion and the body of the letter would indicate that they intend to move a no confidence motion to remove the Petitioner No.1 from the post of

¶80

Adhyaksha/President of the Gram Panchayat.

¶81

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶82

10.5 The contents of the requisition notice therefore

¶83

are in my considered opinion substantial compliance with Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Laxmavva’s case.

¶84

10.6 I answer Point No.1 by holding that the proposed motion of no confidence is not required to be enclosed along with the requisition notice, so long as the requisition notice were to make the purpose and intent of moving a motion for no confidence clearly understood.

¶85

Answer to point No.2: Whether affixture of the requisition notice in the presence of the adult family member of the President or the Vice President would be sufficient compliance in terms of the Clause (B) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3?

¶86

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶87

11.1 The petitioners themselves have produced at

¶88

Annexure-D, D1, D2, D3 photographs of the house of the Petitioner No.1. On enquiry as to who is the woman standing at the door of the said house, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that she is the wife of the Petitioner No.1. The notice being affixed on the wall is being closely watched by the wife of the Petitioner No.1. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

¶89

Rule:3- Motion of No-Confidence

¶90

(3) A notice is Form II shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.

¶91

(a) by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member; or

¶92

(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

¶93

¶94

(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.

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶97

11.2 A perusal of this said Sub-rule would indicate that a notice in Form No.2 shall be given to every member including the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha by delivering or tendering the said notice to such member or if such member is not found by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business within the Gram Panchayat or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family or by registered post and if none of the above means were to be available by affixing such notice at some conspicuous part of the house in which the said member has last resided or carried on business.

¶98

11.3 In the present case it is not in dispute that the notice has been affixed at the current residence of the Petitioner No.1 and while the said affixture is happening, the wife of the Petitioner No.1 is watching the affixture. The said wife being the adult member of the family has chosen not to accept the said notice and as

¶99

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:944 WP No. 100251 of 2025

¶100

contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Petitioner No.1 not being found, the wife being the adult member not accepting the notice, the notice has been affixed is borne out by the said photographs.

¶101

11.4 In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that affixing a notice in form No.2 on the wall of the house of the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or a member of the Gram Panchayat on refusal by the adult member of the family would constitute proper service.

¶102

12. Answer to point No.3: What order?

¶103

In view of my answers to points No.1 and 2, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.

¶104

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶105

SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Ramaling v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramaling 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

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

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

Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

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