Dismissed¶85

Sri Devaraju G v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2025WP/13340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion; Adhyaksha; Upadhyaksha; Grama Panchayat; Tumakuru; Galigenahalli; Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence) Rules 1994; Rule 3(1); Rule 3(2); Form No.I; Form No.1; requisition by ten members; Assistant Commissioner verification of signatures; PAN Card Aadhaar election certificates; interim order 29.04.2025; meeting 09.05.2025; quorum two-thirds of sixteen members; Article 226 & 227; LB-RES; NC: 2025:KHC:25653; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and no direction to quash/recall the notice was given. ¶85

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit and no direction to quash/recall the notice was given.

¶85

Issue for consideration

Whether the requisition submitted by ten members seeking to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner complied with the format prescribed under Form No.I appended to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994. +2 more

¶58

Court's answer

Upon examination of the original records, the Assistant Commissioner's report read with the original requisition letter demonstrates clear compliance with the requirements of Form No.1 prescribed under Rule 3; the requisition is duly signed by the majority of the members seeking to move the 'No Confidence Motion' and satisfies the procedural mandate contemplated under the Rules.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The materials, including the Assistant Commissioner's report, show the ten requisitionists were personally present when the requisition was submitted, and their participation in the 09.05.2025 meeting reinforces the authenticity of their signatures and bona fides of the requisition; the contention that the signatures were secured after submission or that the signatories were not personally present is an afterthought lacking in substance.

¶76

Key takeaways

Thirteen of the sixteen elected members attended the 09.05.2025 meeting, attendance was duly recorded, the statutory two-thirds quorum was satisfied, and the meeting thus proceeded in accordance with law, culminating in the passage of the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner.ratio¶71
The procedural safeguards contemplated under Rule 3(1), including compliance with Form No.I, were duly adhered to, and the Court found no reason to disbelieve the findings in the Assistant Commissioner's report, which conformed to the directions in the interim order dated 29.04.2025; consequently, no procedural irregularity or illegality occurred in the initiation or conduct of the 'No Confidence Motion'.ratio¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 — Rule 3(1), Form No.I — writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 by Adhyaksha of Galigenahalli Grama Panchayat, Tumakuru, challenging Notice No. ELN(TU)CR.03/25-26 dated 17.04.2025 initiating a 'No Confidence Motion'. Earlier, on 29.04.2025, the Court had declined interim relief and directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-verify the identity and signatures of the ten requisitionist members; his report confirmed verification with scrutiny of PAN Cards, Aadhaar Cards and election certificates. Held: the requisition, signed by a majority of the sixteen elected members, clearly complies with Form No.1/Rule 3(1); the ten signatories personally appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and participated in the 09.05.2025 meeting, where thirteen members attended, attendance was recorded, the two-thirds quorum was satisfied and the motion passed; the plea of post-endorsement signatures was an afterthought lacking substance; the petitioner's absence from the meeting and reliance on technicalities was deprecated as unbecoming of an elected representative. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.13340 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI DEVARAJU G S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MENASANDRA VILLAGE, MAKANAHALLI POST, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 118.

¶9

PRESIDENT, GALIGENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 572 118.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU - 572101.

¶16

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GALIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, KARNATAKA- 577 201.

¶20

SRI. VINODH KUMAR B.T. S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDARAKATTE VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, NAGAVALLI POST, TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 120.

¶21

SRI. SHIVAGANGAIAH, S/O GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLANAHATTI VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, HALANURU POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 107.

¶22

SRI. RAJANNA, S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DUMMANAKUPPE, GOLLARAHATTI, HEBBUR HOBLI, NAGAVALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572118.

¶23

SMT. ANNAPOORNA, W/O ERIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLANAHATTI, HEBBUR HOBLI, HALANURU POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572107.

¶24

SMT. VEENA, W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT MARANAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI,

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

TUMAKURU TALUK

¶28

AND DISTRICT - 572 107.

¶29

SMT. BYLAMMA, W/O LAKSHMISHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TURUCHANAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, HALANURU POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572107.

¶30

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O SRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, GALIGENAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572118.

¶31

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI, W/O LATE RAVISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GALIGENAHALLI, HEBBUR HOBLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 118.

¶32

SMT. SHASHIKALA, W/O SRIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUDIGERE PALYA, HEBBUR HOBLI, MAKANAHALLI POST, TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 118.

¶33

SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY. S/O HUCHCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT DUMMANAKUPPE, HEBBUR HOBLI, NAGAVALLI POST,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572118.

¶37

SMT. SUSHILA, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKASARANGI, GULURU HOBLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572118.

¶38

SRI. SIDDARAJU C.G., S/O GULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKASARANGI, GULURU HOBLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572118.

¶39

SRI. JAGADISH, S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT DS HOSAHALLY, GULUR HOBLI, KAMBATHANAHALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572118.

¶40

SMT. CHANDANA, W/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDARAKATTE, HEBBUR HOBLI, NAGAVALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572118.

¶41

SRI. GIRISH, S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT YALLAPURA, GULURU HOBLI, CHIKKASARANGI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

HC-KAR

DISTRICT - 572118.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADV. FOR R3; SRI RAJAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO R6;

¶47

R7, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17 & R18 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO QUASH/RECALL THE NOTICE NO. ELN(TU)CR.03/25-26 DATED 17.04.2025 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶49

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

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

In the captioned petition, the petitioner, who was serving as the Adhyaksha of Galigenahalli Grama Panchayat, Tumakuru, has called in question the notice issued by the SubDivisional Officer/Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of NoConfidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

By order dated 29.04.2025, this Court, while declining to grant an interim order, directed respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner to re-verify the identity and signatures of the members who had submitted the requisition seeking to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner.

¶57

Pursuant to the said direction, respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner – has submitted a report confirming that he has verified the identity and signatures of each of the members who appeared before him to submit the written requisition. The report also records that the verification process included scrutiny of supporting documents such as PAN Cards, Aadhaar Cards, and election certificates to authenticate the identity of the members who submitted the requisition.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contentions urged in the petition, has placed strong reliance on the requisition document at Annexure-B. Referring to the said document, he contends that the requisition submitted by ten members seeking to initiate the 'No Confidence Motion' is not in the format prescribed under Form No.I appended to Rule 3 of the said Rules.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the private respondents jointly contend that the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner clinches the issue as to the validity and genuineness of the requisition submitted by the members seeking to move the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner.

¶62

Upon a meticulous examination of the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is fully satisfied that the report submitted by respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner when read in conjunction with the original requisition letter forming part of the record, demonstrates clear compliance with the requirements of Form No.1 as prescribed under Rule 3. The requisition is duly signed by the majority of the members seeking to move a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner and satisfies the procedural mandate contemplated under the Rules.

¶63

For ease of reference, Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 is extracted as under:

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

"3. Motion of No-confidence.- (1) A written notice of intention to make the motion under the proviso to Section 49 shall be in Form-I signed by [not less than specified in Section 49(1)] of the total number of members together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person [specified under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the allied particular allegations with notice enlisted in written witnesses and evidences submitted in person] by any two of the members signing the notice to the Assistant Commissioner."

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the signatures appearing on the requisition are not genuine and were allegedly obtained subsequent to the endorsement made by respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that the said endorsement, which records that ten members personally appeared before him and submitted the requisition duly signed, is inscribed above the signatures themselves. On this basis, learned counsel argues that the document is dubious in nature and fails to satisfy the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

This Court, however, is not persuaded by the above submission. The materials placed on record, including the report of the Assistant Commissioner, clearly indicate that the ten members who had submitted the requisition were indeed present in person at the office of respondent No.2 at the time of submission. More significantly, those very members have proceeded to participate in the meeting convened for consideration of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ held on 09.05.2025. Out of the total sixteen elected members of the Galigenahalli Grama Panchayat, thirteen members were present for the meeting, while three members, including the petitioner, remained absent. The records further disclose that attendance was duly recorded and the statutory quorum of two-thirds was satisfied. The meeting thus proceeded in accordance with law, culminating in the passage of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner.

¶72

The active participation of the ten members who initiated the requisition in the meeting convened for consideration of the motion reinforces the authenticity of their signatures and the bona fides of the requisition. In view of these circumstances,

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

the contention that the signatures were secured after submission of the requisition or that the signatories were not personally present before the Assistant Commissioner appears to be an afterthought, lacking in substance. This Court finds no

¶77

reason to disbelieve the findings contained in the Assistant Commissioner’s report, especially when the same is in conformity with the directions issued in the interim order dated 29.04.2025. It is further evident that the procedural safeguards contemplated under Rule 3(1), including compliance with Form No.I, have been duly adhered to. As such, no procedural irregularity or illegality can be said to have occurred in the initiation or conduct of the ‘No Confidence Motion’.

¶78

The conduct of the petitioner also merits critical observation. Having been democratically elected to the office of Adhyaksha , the petitioner was under a corresponding duty to uphold the democratic process, including attending the meeting scheduled for the consideration of the ‘No Confidence Motion’. The petitioner, instead of participating in the said meeting, has chosen to remain absent and thereafter has raised a series of technical objections in the present writ proceedings. Such

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:25653 WP No. 13340 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

conduct is unbecoming of an elected representative and does

¶83

not inspire the confidence of this Court. It appears that the petitioner, having failed to face the democratic challenge posed through the motion, now seeks to invoke technicalities as a means to invalidate the process.

¶84

In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The impugned action is in due compliance with the statutory provisions and has been carried out following proper procedure.

¶85

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶86

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶87

SBN

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the requisition submitted by ten members seeking to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner complied with the format prescribed under Form No.I appended to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994.¶58
The court held
Upon examination of the original records, the Assistant Commissioner's report read with the original requisition letter demonstrates clear compliance with the requirements of Form No.1 prescribed under Rule 3; the requisition is duly signed by the majority of the members seeking to move the 'No Confidence Motion' and satisfies the procedural mandate contemplated under the Rules.ratio¶62
2.
Whether the signatures on the requisition were genuine, or were obtained subsequent to the endorsement of respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner, and whether the signatories personally appeared before him.¶67
The court held
The materials, including the Assistant Commissioner's report, show the ten requisitionists were personally present when the requisition was submitted, and their participation in the 09.05.2025 meeting reinforces the authenticity of their signatures and bona fides of the requisition; the contention that the signatures were secured after submission or that the signatories were not personally present is an afterthought lacking in substance.ratio¶76
3.
Whether any procedural irregularity or illegality attended the initiation or conduct of the 'No Confidence Motion', including recording of attendance and satisfaction of the statutory quorum at the meeting held on 09.05.2025.medium confidence¶71
The court held
Thirteen of the sixteen elected members attended the 09.05.2025 meeting, attendance was duly recorded, the statutory two-thirds quorum was satisfied, and the meeting thus proceeded in accordance with law, culminating in the passage of the 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner.ratio¶71

Sri Devaraju G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Devaraju G 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Anne Dominic Vs Mr Samuel James Dominic

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir Vs M/S Deone Marketing Service

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri Thimmarayappa

Malatesh Murthy Vs the Secretary

Arumugam Mythili Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Vinodh Babu Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike