Smt Shailaja H Vs the Principal Secretary

THE BUDHIHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATHI REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OFFICE AT BUDHIHAL NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 111 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶29

SRI.CHIRANJIVI PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BUDHIHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATHI BUDHIHAL, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; SRI.OMKAR MURTHY G, ADVOCATE FOR R.4)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION NOTICE BEARING NO.ELN/CR/31/2025 DATED 21.05.2025 AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:19496 WP No. 15855 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶40

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the elected members of respondent No.3 - Grama Panchayath post elections, were elected to the post of President and Vice President respectively on 17.07.2023.

¶41

The petitioners, are now subjected to No-Confidence Motion at the instance of elected members of 3^rd respondentGrama Panchayath. In the captioned writ petition, challenge to the initiation of No-Confidence Motion in the present case, is primarily on the ground that the PDO of 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayath has entertained a requisition seeking No-Confidence Motion and this requisition is routed through PDO contrary to the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.203171/2024. The petitioners, who are President and Vice President respectively, have challenged the impugned notice dated 21.05.2025 issued by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner on the ground that this requisition is received by the PDO and therefore, the impugned notice is

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:19496 WP No. 15855 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

contrary to the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment cited supra and same is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.

¶46

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has opposed this writ petition by placing strong reliance on a recent judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.160/2025 ( Mrs. Gagana vs. State of Karnataka and Others ) . This decision is cited to counter the reliance placed by the petitioners' counsel on an earlier judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in support of their claim. The State contends that the Division Bench decision lays down a binding precedent on the procedural aspects involved in the initiation of a No-Confidence Motion under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶47

The petitioners' counsel, however, seeks to persuade this Court to take a different view by relying upon the staff attendance register maintained at the office of the 3rd respondent-Grama Panchayat. He contends that the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) of respondent No.3 was not present

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:19496 WP No. 15855 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

on the date on which the requisition for the No-Confidence Motion is alleged to have been submitted. It is specifically urged that the PDO was on leave or otherwise absent for a period spanning about 10 to 12 days, and as such, the requisition could not have been validly submitted through or endorsed by him. Based on this, it is contended that the very initiation of the No-Confidence Motion proceedings by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner is vitiated on account of procedural impropriety.

¶52

This Court has carefully examined the material placed on record. It is no doubt true that the documents produced by the petitioners reveal certain procedural lapses or irregularities in the submission and processing of the requisition for No-Confidence Motion. However, in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench in W.A. No.160/2025 , this Court is of the view that such procedural infractions, by themselves, do not constitute a sufficient ground to interfere with the initiation of the No-Confidence Motion under Section 49(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Division Bench has clarified that once a requisition is

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19496 WP No. 15855 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

received from the prescribed number of elected members, the Assistant Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to initiate proceedings for a No-Confidence Motion in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Rules. The origin or routing of such requisition through the PDO, even if irregular, would not render the entire process invalid unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or illegality.

¶56

Specifically, the Division Bench has held that the mere use of the PDO's official seal to endorse or acknowledge the requisition does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings. The procedural requirement under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is directory in nature and not mandatory. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the initiation of the No-Confidence Motion by respondent No.2, based on the requisition submitted by the requisite number of members, cannot be faulted merely because the requisition was allegedly received during the PDO's absence or was routed through him in a disputed manner.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:19496 WP No. 15855 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

In view of the settled legal position and the law declared by the Division Bench, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner for the No-Confidence Motion against the President and Vice-President of the Grama Panchayat. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file an appropriate complaint before the competent authority or disciplinary forum, if they are able to substantiate that the PDO has violated any norms or guidelines, including the circular produced at Annexure-G .

¶61

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶63

NBM

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Smt Shailaja H v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shailaja H v. the Principal Secretary

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

Sri. Gayasuddin J. Vs Sri. M Aditya Dutt

Sri Mylarappa Vs Sri Sanjeevappa

Smt. Rudramma Vs Smt. Manjula Y H

Sri P Rathnakar Shenoy Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Shilpa Madhu Vs the Town Municipal Council

N Narayanareddy Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike