Smt. Sharanamma W/O Amaregouda Patil Vs the Assistant Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100675 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. AMAREGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT-587154.

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

SRI. SANTOSH B. JAGALASAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, R/O. PWD GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, BAGALKOT-587154.

¶15

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, HIRESINGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.

¶17

SMT. MARIYAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA MADAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: VICE PRESIDENT, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶18

SRI. VENKANAGOUDA S/O. MAHANTAGOUDA AADAPUR,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶20

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶21

SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O. DEVAPPA BANGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶22

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. MUTHAPPA BHAJANTRI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶23

SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. YAMANAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶24

SMT. HANAMAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA HESAROOR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶25

SRI. SANGAPPA BASAPPA MERAKHOOR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶26

SMT. SHEELA W/O. MALLAPPA AWARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶27

SMT. SAVITA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KUDLEPPANAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶28

SRI. YANKAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA KANNERI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶30

SMT. HOLEYAMMA W/O. GANGAPPA CHITAVADAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶31

SRI. GOPAL S/O. LAXMAN PUJARI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶32

SRI. MALLAPPA GYANAPPA VAJJAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶33

SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O. DEVAPPA GODDI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶34

SRI. PAKKAPPAGOUDA S/O. SANGANAGOUDA JADIYAPPAGOUDAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶35

SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. KALAKAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶36

SRI. SHANTAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA MADAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154.

¶37

SMT. PAVITRA W/O. PRABHUGOUDA GOUDAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER, HIRESINGANGUTTI GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587154. …RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R4; MISS. RANJITA ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SADYOJAT BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R22)

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶40

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 NO CONFIDENCE MEETING NOTICE DATED 23.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY FIXED THE NO CONFIDENCE MEETING DATED 14.02.2025 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E IN RESPECT OF ADHYAKSHA (PETITIONER) AND TO COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER BY IMPOSE THE EXEMPLARY COST ON THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN EXERCISING THE SUO MOTO POWER IN CAPACITY OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY THERE BY ISSUING “NO CONFIDENCE MEETING NOTICE” DATED 23.01.2025 AS ACTING AGAINST TO THE RULE 3 (1) OF THE KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYAT RAJ (MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE AGAINST ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RULES 1994 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; 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.

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

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

¶44

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶45

a) A Writ of nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned No Confidence Meeting Notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.1 authority fixed the no confidence meeting dated 14.02.2025 marked as Annexure-E in respect of Adhyaksha (petitioner) in the interest of justice and equity;

¶46

b) The petitioner prays this Hon'ble court may please to compensate the petitioner by impose the exemplary cost on the respondent no.2 in exercising the suo moto power in capacity of the respondent No.1 authority there by issuing “No Confidence Meeting Notice” dated 23.01.2025 as

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶48

acting against to the Rule 3 (1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules 1994 in the interest of justice and equity;

¶49

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.

¶50

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 23.01.2025 issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner calling for a meeting to be held on 14.02.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, who is the Adyaksha/President of the Hiresinganagutti Grama Panchayat.

¶51

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

¶52

3.1. The notice issued by Assistant Commissioner in Form No.2 is not in accordance with sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence Against Adyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’). The said notice does not mention the date on which the requisition

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶54

notice had been submitted by the members of the Grama Panchayat.

¶55

3.2. The requisition notice has not been enclosed along with Form No.2 and therefore, the same is in violation of the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.

¶56

3.3. The requisite number of members have not signed the requisition notice. As such, the same does not qualify the requirement of the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶57

3.4. Once earlier, a requisition notice having been moved by the members of the panchayat, the same having been challenged before this Court in WP No.100258/2025 and this Court having quashed the said requisition notice and the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.01.2025, in terms of proviso to sub-rule

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶60

(2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, no notice could be issued within 30 days of the said order.

¶61

3.5. The Order passed by this Court being dated 20.01.2025, no such notice could be issued by the Assistant Commissioner until 20.02.2025. The present notice having been issued on 23.01.2025 is contrary to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules.

¶62

3.6. On an application being made to the Information Officer of the Assistant Commissioner's office, the said Assistant Commissioner's office on 28.01.2025 has categorically indicated that there is no requisition notice submitted on 23.01.2025. As such, he submits that there is no requisition given by the members of the Grama Panchayat for the Assistant Commissioner to act on in terms of subrule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules and issue a notice in Form No.2 as such the same has been issued Suo Moto which is not permissible.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶64

3.7. On all the above grounds, he submits that the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E is required to be quashed by allowing above petition.

¶65

3.8. Apart there from, a request has been made for compensation to be also awarded to the petitioner for having violated the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules.

¶66

Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 having produced the original records submits that

¶67

4.1. The requisition notice was received by the Assistant Commissioners’ office on 22.01.2025 and a entry thereof has been made in the inward register, copy of which has been produced and such entry is found mentioned at item No.7032.

¶68

4.2. It is in furtherance thereof, notice had been issued on 23.01.2025 providing 15 days clear notice to the petitioner of the proposed ‘no confidence motion’ to be considered on 14.02.2025 and the

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶70

meeting to be held at 12:00 PM in the office of the Grama Panchayat.

¶71

4.3. Insofar as the endorsement issued by the Public Information Officer, he submits firstly that the application filed by the petitioner was with a specific request calling upon the Public Information Officer to indicate if a requisition notice had been received on 23.01.2025 and it is in that background that the information has been provided indicating that no requisition notice was received on 23.01.2025. If the question had been otherwise, it could have been answered that a requisition notice had been received on 22.01.2025. Thus, he submits that the petitioner cannot place any reliance on this said reply of the Public Information Officer.

¶72

4.4. A requisition notice having been received by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.01.2025, the Assistant Commission has issued the notice fixing the date of the meeting as 14.02.2025, which

¶73

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶74

provides 10 days clear notice. The same being in accordance with law, the claims made by the petitioner not being sustainable, the petition is required to be dismissed.

¶75

Heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri V.S.Kalasurmath, learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri Bhushan Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 and Miss. Ranjita Alagawadi., learned counsel for Sri Sadyojat Baligattimath., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 22. Perused the papers.

¶76

The points that would arise for consideration are;

¶77

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner can issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 without a requisition notice having been received in terms of Form No.1?

¶78

1. Whether the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to accompany the notice fixing the meeting in terms of Form No.2?

¶79

1. Whether on a successful challenge having been made to an earlier notice issued by the

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶81

Assistant Commissioner, Assistant

¶82

Commissioner cannot issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 fixing the date of meeting until 30 days after the quashing of the earlier notice?

¶83

1. Whether the date of receipt of Form No.1 is mandatorily required to be mentioned in Form No.2?

¶84

1. What order?

¶85

I answer the above points as under:

¶86

ANSWER TO POINT NO.1:- Whether the Assistant Commissioner can issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 without a requisition notice having been received in terms of Form No.1?

¶87

8.1. The submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition in Form No.1 has never been received by the Assistant Commissioner’s office. Therefore, notice under Form No.2 could not have been issued. In this regard, he relies upon the endorsement issued by the Information Officer of the Assistant Commissioner’s Office dated 28.01.2025. This reply of the Public Information Officer is in pursuance of a requisition made by the petitioner on 24.01.2025. A

¶88

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶89

reading of the said requisition for information indicates that the request has been made specifically indicating as to whether any requisition notice for moving a ‘no confidence motion’ has been received on 23.01.2025 and it is in that background that the Information Officer has replied stating that no such requisition has been received on 23.01.2025.

¶90

8.2. Thus, both the query raised by the petitioner and the answer given by the Information Officer is with respect to a requisition notice having been submitted or received on 23.01.2025. There is no particular request made in general, enquiring as to whether any requisition notice has been received. But a specific request has been made enquiring as to whether requisition notice has been received on 23.1.2025.

¶91

8.3. If at all the petitioner had sought for a general query, probably the answer could have been different.

¶92

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶93

8.4. Based on the said endorsement issued by the Information Officer, the petitioner cannot contend that there is no requisition notice, which has been received by the Assistant Commissioner. More so, on a perusal of the original records, which have been produced which would indicate that in the inward register, there is entry made at item No.7032 of the requisition notice having been received on 22.01.2025. Thus, the endorsement of the Public Information Officer would not help the petitioner in any manner, requisition notice having been received on 22.01.2025, it cannot be said that there is no requisition notice received by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶94

8.5. Hence answer point No.1 by holding that it is required for requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 being received by the Assistant Commissioner before issuing a notice in terms of Form 2 fixing a meeting for considering the no confidence motion. No notice could be issued by the Assistant Commission in terms

¶95

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶96

of Form 2 suo moto. In the present matter, such requisition notice having been received on 22.01.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has taken necessary action pursuant thereto by issuing a notice in terms of Form 2 on 23.01.2025, which cannot be said to be suo moto.

¶97

ANSWER TO POINT NO.2:- Whether the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to accompany the notice fixing the meeting in terms of Form No.2?

¶98

9.1. The submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is required to accompany the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in Form No.2.

¶99

9.2. This issue is no longer res-integra. The aspect has been considered in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Laxmavva Vs The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2007 Kar

¶100

15 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶102

The relevant paras being Para-4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

¶103

“4 . We have perused Rule 3(1) read with Section 49 of the Act and the decision of the Learned Single Judge in Mallamma's case as well as the records. No doubt the learned Single Judge while considering Mallamma's case has held that, as requirement of Rule 3(1) is mandatory in nature, since the notice of “no-confidence motion” should be in Form-I and should accompany a copy of the proposed motion and if there is any violation of the requirements, the notice is bad in law.

¶104

6. Under Rule 3, procedure has been prescribed as to how these motions of no-confidence to be carried out. Clause (1) requires that, a written notice of intention to make the motion shall be in Form-I signed by not less than 1/3 of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion to be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner. As per clause (2), the Assistant Commissioner thereafter shall convene a meeting for consideration of the motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than 30 days from the date of which notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 was delivered. It is also mandatory

¶105

16 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶107

requirement that he shall give to the members a notice of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting in Form-II.

¶108

10. 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 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 non-enclosing the proposal would be only an irregularity and in our view does not cause any prejudice to the other side.

¶109

11. 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.

¶110

12. 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 noconfidence 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.”

¶111

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶112

9.3. A perusal of para-4 of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that what fell for consideration of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is whether the proposed motion in terms of requisition issued under Form No.1 should accompany the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Needless to say in terms of Form No.2).

¶113

9.4. The Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically come to a conclusion at para No.10 extracted above that when notice of majority members makes it clear the intention to move a non-confidence motion, the mere non-enclosing of the proposal (requisition notice in terms of Form No.1) would be only an irregularity and does not cause any prejudice to the other side.

¶114

9.5. The proposal which is referred to in para-10 of the aforesaid order is the requisition notice in Form No.1 since that is the proposal submitted by the requisitionists-Grama Panchayat members for moving a ‘no confidence motion’.

¶115

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶116

9.6. At para-12 of the aforesaid order, the Hon’ble Division Bench having come to a conclusion that since the notice refers to the proposal of no confidence motion, there is substantive compliance of the requirement of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The said decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench would equally apply to the present facts.

¶117

9.7. A notice having been issued by the Assistant Commissioner indicating that a proposal for ‘no confidence’ would be considered in the meeting to be held on 14.02.2025. The proposal of ‘no confidence’ being referred to in the said notice issued in Form No.2 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, would be in compliance with the requirement of law as held by the Division Bench in the case of Laxmavva (supra).

¶118

9.8. Hence I answer Point No.2 by holding that the requisition notice in terms of Form No.1 is not required to accompany the notice fixing the meeting in terms of Form No.2, so long as the

¶119

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶120

notice in form 2 refers to the agenda of the said meeting to consider a no-confidence

¶121

motion.

¶122

ANSWER TO POINT NO.3:- Whether on a successful challenge having been made to an earlier notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner cannot issue a notice in terms of Form No.2 fixing the date of meeting until 30 days after the quashing of the earlier notice?

¶123

10.1. The submission of Shri Anand R.Kolli, learned

¶124

counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in terms of proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, the Assistant Commissioner could not issue any notice until 30 days of the orders passed by this Court dated 20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, quashing the earlier requisition notice in Form 1 and Notice of the Assistant Commissioner in Form 2.

¶125

10.2. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule(3) of the Rules, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

¶126

“(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 members a notice of

¶127

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶128

not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II: [The Assistant Commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specified in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect to Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer]:”

¶129

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.

¶130

10.3. A perusal of the said provision would indicate that if

¶131

the holding of a meeting is stayed by an order of the Court, the Assistant Commissioner would have to adjourn the meeting fixed and hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than 30 days from the date on which he receives intimation about the vacation of stay after giving the members, a notice of not less than 15 clear days of such adjourned meeting.

¶132

10.4. Thus if there is an order of stay of the meeting proposed to be held to consider the no-confidence motion the said meeting is required to be

¶133

21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶134

adjourned. On the assistant commissioner receiving intimation of the vacating of the stay, he has to hold the meeting by fixing a date not more that 30 days from the date on which the intimation of stay being vacated is received by him.

¶135

10.5. In the present case, there is no stay of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner in WP No.100258/2025. The said writ petition came to be disposed on the date it was taken up for admission.

¶136

10.6. The purport and intent of the proviso is that when a stay order has been passed and the matter adjourned, it is only after the Assistant Commissioner comes to know of the vacating of the stay that a notice fixing the meeting not later than 30 days from the date on which received the information, is to be fixed. However, it is qualified that such meeting is to be held by issuing a notice of not less than 15 clear days which would imply that from the date on which the Assistant Commissioner comes to know of the vacating of the

¶137

22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶138

stay a notice of 15 days is to be issued such that the meeting is held within 30 days of the intimation being received of the stay being vacated, that does not mean that he has to wait for 30 days as contended by Shri. Anand Kolli.

¶139

10.7. Thus, even though, there was no stay granted in WP No.100258/2025, the said writ petition having been disposed of on 20.01.2025 quashing the requisition notice as also notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The earlier proceedings came to an end and the same could not be relied upon by any of the parties.

¶140

10.8. Thus, the question of holding adjourned meeting would not at all arise since the earlier requisition and the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner could not be considered in the meeting to be so fixed. The earlier requisition and notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner having come to an end with the passing of the order on 20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, any other

¶141

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶142

requisition issued is a new requisition, which would have to be dealt with in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 read with Section 49 of the Act.

¶143

10.9. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that in the present matter the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, would not be applicable. The requisitionists Grama Panchayat members on 22.01.2025, in terms of the liberty, which had been reserved vide order dated 20.01.2025 in WP No.100258/2025, had submitted the requisition. It was for the Assistant Commissioner to issue a notice of not less than 15 days in terms of first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, which had been done in the present matter.

¶144

10.10.I answer Point No.3 by holding that on a

¶145

successful challenge having been made to an earlier notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner after an order being passed setting aside or quashing the notice issued by him, would have to issue a

¶146

24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶147

fresh notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 within the time prescribed therein in the event of a fresh requisition being received, he need not wait for 30 days after the quashing of the earlier notice. The fresh requisition not being a continuation of the earlier requisition the embargo under the third provisio to sub section (1) of section 49 of THE KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993 since the same has not been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat.

¶148

ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:- Whether the date of receipt of Form No.1 is mandatorily required to be mentioned in Form No.2?

¶149

11.1. The last submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice issued in Form No.2 should mention the date of the requisition notice and in this regard, he refers to Form No.2 appended to the Rules. The said Form No.2 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

¶150

25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

��

��

� � � ��

�� !�

�� "�#�� $� � %��&�� '�( � � � ( � )� �� +��,��- � � � ( � )�.(�� //0120/1/3�� ,�� 4��56��( �� #%��78�� 9�)!�2/�11�� : �� - � � � ( � )� ��;��;6� � <�=� **�** � **�** % �>�� - �� ?��<@��*�� **�** �� **�** � **��** �� **�** � **�** A 9�B��,�� C�� **�** $,�� **�** �( **�** #6��>�

¶156

D� � - � ��.E��*��F � ��-��,��$5: �

¶157

=��*��!�

¶158

G�5�� H�� I' � ��J5,� ��>4��56��( �� #%� �� 4��56��( �� #%�

¶159

.(�� 1K0120/1/3� ��LF � �-��,��$5:�M�

¶160

11.2. A perusal of the Form No.2 indicates that the subject should contain a reference to no confidence motion to be moved against the Adhyaksha or Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayat.

¶161

11.3. It is to be stated in the body of the notice that a meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha or Upadyaksha of Grama Panchayat, will be held on a particular date at

¶162

26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2047 WP No. 100675 of 2025

¶163

particular time in the office of the Grama Panchayat.

¶164

11.4. Nowhere in the said Form No.2 there is a requirement to mention the date on which the requisition notice has been received by the Assistant Commissioner. The notice in Form No.2 is only required to fix the date on which the meeting of the Grama Panchayat would be held, the time at which it would be held and the said meeting to be held at the Grama Panchayat. Thus, having gone through the said Form No.2 which has been reproduced herein above, it is clear that there is no requirement to mention the date on which the requisition notice has been received in that view of the matter, this submission of Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioner would also be liable to be rejected.

¶165