Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

SIDDAPPA S/O HANAMANTARAYA HIRE, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR, R/O: ROUNDAL BANDA, TALUK: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE BY ITS SECRETARY – 560 001.

¶16

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR, DIST : RAICHUR – 584 101.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 128.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶20

THE ELECTION OFFICER / DESIGNATED OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR, TALUK: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT, LINGASUGUR DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶22

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHITTAPUR, TALUK: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶23

SMT. RATNAMMA W/O RAJESH, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶24

SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O RANGAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶25

SRI. SANGANABASAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶26

SRI. YENKAPPA S/O MAHADEVI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶27

SRI. DEVAPPA

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶29

S/O MALLAPPA BACHALE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶30

SRI. MALAPPA S/O AMATEPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶31

SMT. GADDEVVA W/O SANGAPPA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶32

SRI. RAYAPPA S/O GADDEPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶33

SMT. GADDEMMA W/O MALLAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶34

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O YENKAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶35

SMT. SHANKREMMA

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶37

W/O GADDEPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER R/O: CHITTAPUR, TALUK : LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1, R3 & R4)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REQUISITION DATED 10-02-2025 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 18 ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶45

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12.

¶46

This petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the requisition dated 10.02.2025 marked at AnnexureG, which is the requisition sent by respondents No.8 to 18,

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶48

wherein the said respondents have sought a meeting to be convened to discuss the ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner who is presently the President of Chittapur Gram Panchayat.

¶49

Pursuant to the requisition dated 10.02.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has issued the notice at Annexure-H in Form II, fixing the date of ‘no confidence motion’ on 04.03.2025.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, out of ten persons who have signed the requisition, one person namely Smt. Gaddemma W/o. Sangappa, did not participate in the proceedings of the panchayat on many occasions starting from 26.12.2023 to 16.01.2025. The proceeding is initiated against the said member to disqualify her from the membership. Citing this as a reason, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, Smt. Gaddemma cannot participate in the proceeding. It is his further contention that, the requisition signed by her along with others is vitiated and the Assistant Commissioner could not have fixed the date for ‘no confidence motion’.

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶52

Learned counsel in support of his submission would rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Rana and others Vs. Swami Prasad Maurya and others, (2007) 4 SCC 270 and also the Judgment of this Court in Usha W/o. Basappa Vs. State of

¶53

Karnataka and others, in [Writ Petition

¶54

No.200008/2025].

¶55

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, would contend that, the minimum number of persons who are required to sign the requisition will be met even if Smt. Gaddemma is excluded from the signatories of the requisition. It is further stated that, merely because a disqualification proceeding is initiated a member, the member does not lose disqualification unless qualification is ordered and till then, the said member is free to participate in the ‘no confidence motion’ and other proceeding of the panchayat.

¶56

Learned counsel for the respondent would rely

¶57

upon the Judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shivaram S/o. Vithoba Chauhan Vs. Assistant

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶59

Commissioner and others, in W.P.No.40637/2008 (LBRES).

¶60

This Court has considered the contentions made

¶61

at the bar and perused the records.

¶62

There is no dispute that the requisition is signed by certain members of the gram panchayat, to discuss ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner who is the President. The requisition has met the requirement prescribed under the relevant Rules. Pursuant to the requisition, the Assistant Commissioner has issued the notice fixing the date to discuss ‘no confidence motion’ proceeding.

¶63

It is indeed true that, one of the signatories to the said requisition is facing the disciplinary proceeding before the competent authority. However, the competent authority has not yet disqualified the said member. Unless, the member is disqualified, the member would continue to be the member of the Gram Panchayat, and as long as he/she is the member of the Gram Panchayat, he/she is eligible to participate in the proceedings of the panchayat.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶65

This is the review taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shivaram (supra).

¶66

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh Rana and others (supra), this Court is of the view that the said Judgment is rendered in an entirely different context and the provisions governing ‘no confidence motion’ under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj Act was not under consideration in the aforementioned Judgment.

¶67

As far as the Judgment in the case of Usha W/o.

¶68

Basappa (supra) is concerned, the same also does not come to the rescue of the petitioner, in as much as the said case, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that, election to the post of the president of the Panchayat, shall be subject to the result of the proceeding relating to disqualification of the very same president who has contested to the office of the president. In the present case, scenario is different. The petitioner is facing the disqualification proceeding on the requisition signed by certain members of the panchayat.

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1401 WP No.200574 of 2025

¶70

Even if one member who is facing disqualification proceeding, is excluded from the requisition, still the requisition would be valid requisition as it meets the requirement of provisions of law. Hence, the petition is not maintainable.

¶71

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶72

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶73

SVH

¶74

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Siddappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa 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

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Yellappa Matakeri

The Management of Nidec Industrial Automation India Private Limited, Vs the Principal Secretary to Department of Labour

Sri.B.E.Nanjundegowda Vs the Divisional Controller

Kalyani S/O Madappa Kore Vs Vithal S/Obasavantappa Babaladi

Syed Mrutuza Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran Vs Nasreen Anjum