Dismissed¶52

Smt Pushpa v. Praveen Naik v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2025WP/21914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Grama Panchayat Adhyaksha/President; notice under Rule 3(2), KPR (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules 1994; 10-day timeline for acting on Rule 3(1) requisition is directive only, substantial compliance suffices; copy of requisition need not accompany notice; Section 49 Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act 1993 amended by Karnataka Act No.49 of 2020 reducing no-confidence bar from 30 months to 15 months; writ petition under Article 226 dismissed; Karnataka HC LB-RES, Chitradurga; coordinate Bench ruling in Chetana A. Channabasappa, W.P. No. 100364/2025 (decided 21.01.2025) followed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned notice was not interfered with. ¶52

Smt Pushpa v Praveen Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned notice was not interfered with.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the motion of no confidence against the petitioner (elected President on 10.08.2023) is barred by the pre-amendment 30-month limitation in the erstwhile second proviso to Section 49 of the Act, 1993, notwithstanding the amendment brought by Act 49 of 2020. +2 more

¶29

Court's answer

After the amendment to Section 49 of the Act, 1993 by Karnataka Act No.49 of 2020, the statutory threshold for initiating a no-confidence motion is 15 months, not 30; the amended provision applies to the present facts, the petitioner has completed more than 15 months in office and is therefore not insulated from the motion, and reliance on the unamended 30-month provision is legally unsustainable.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Failure to issue the Rule 3(2) notice within ten days of the requisition does not merit acceptance as a ground of challenge: this Court follows the coordinate Bench's ruling in Chetana A. Channabasappa (W.P. No. 100364/2025, decided 21.01.2025) that the 10-day time frame under Rule 3(1) is a directive for administrative promptness and substantial compliance suffices, and marginal delay confers no right on the elected representative to challenge the notice.

¶40

Key takeaways

Annexing the requisition to the Rule 3(2) notice is not a mandatory obligation under the KPR Rules, 1994; the Rules merely require the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice upon satisfaction that a valid Rule 3(1) requisition has been received, and non-enclosure of the requisition does not render the notice illegal or void where the process is initiated in substantial compliance.ratio¶45
Having regard to the legal position enunciated in Chetana A. Channabasappa (supra), none of the petitioner's contentions merit acceptance; the challenge to the impugned notice is unsustainable either on facts or in law and this Court finds no reason to interfere.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single judge, oral order) — W.P. No. 21914 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 24.07.2025. The petitioner, President (Adhyaksha) of Mallappanahalli Grama Panchayat, challenged the notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga Sub-Division, under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, convening a meeting on 30.07.2025 to consider a no-confidence motion against her. Held, dismissing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: (i) after the amendment to Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 by Karnataka Act No.49 of 2020, the statutory threshold for initiating a no-confidence motion stands reduced from 30 months to 15 months; the petitioner, having completed more than 15 months in office, is not insulated from the motion, and reliance on the unamended provision is legally unsustainable; (ii) the 10-day time frame for the Assistant Commissioner to act on a Rule 3(1) requisition and issue notice is a directive ensuring administrative promptness and not a right conferring immunity from challenge on account of marginal delay; substantial compliance suffices — following the coordinate Bench in Chetana A. Channabasappa vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 100364/2025, decided on 21.01.2025; (iii) annexing the requisition to the notice is not a mandatory obligation under the KPR Rules, 1994, and non-enclosure does not render the notice illegal or void where the process is initiated in substantial compliance. The challenge was found unsustainable on facts and in law and the petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 21914 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. PUSHPA V PRAVEEN NAIK W/O PRAVEEN NAIK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.131 MALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HOSADURGA TALUK - 577554.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANATKUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL BODIES AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560001.

¶15

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA – 577501

¶17

GRAMA PANCHAYATH 08 MALLAPPANAHALLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577554

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 10.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2/AC, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present writ petition is filed by the President of Mallappanahalli Gram Panchayat, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, assailing the legality and validity of the notice dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPR Rules, 1994'). By the said notice, a meeting has been convened for consideration of a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, scheduled to be held on 30.07.2025.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The present writ petition challenges the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent–Assistant Commissioner under Rule 3(2) of the KPR Rules, 1994, on multiple grounds. The first ground of challenge pertains to the maintainability of the no-confidence motion itself. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that she was elected as the President of the Grama Panchayat on 10.08.2023 and, therefore, any motion of no confidence ought to conform to the time limitation as it stood prior to the amendment brought by Act 49 of 2020. According to the petitioner, in terms of the erstwhile second proviso to Section 49 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993"), a noconfidence motion could not be initiated until completion of 30 months from the date of election. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that the attempt to initiate the noconfidence motion prior to expiry of 30 months is legally untenable.

¶30

The second ground urged by the petitioner is procedural. It is contended that the Assistant

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Commissioner has not adhered to the statutory mandate of issuing notice within a period of ten days upon receipt of a valid requisition under Rule 3(1) of the KPR Rules, 1994. The petitioner submits that the notice dated 10.07.2025 issued under Rule 3(2) is vitiated as it was not issued in strict compliance with the time-bound procedural framework prescribed under the Rules.

¶34

The third ground raised is that the impugned notice under Rule 3(2) is not accompanied by a copy of the requisition allegedly submitted by the elected members of the Grama Panchayat seeking initiation of a motion of no confidence. The petitioner contends that non-furnishing of the requisition vitiates the entire process as it deprives the petitioner of an opportunity to ascertain the legitimacy of the requisition and the identities and intent of the members purportedly supporting the motion.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents. I have also carefully perused the material placed on record.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

With regard to the first contention, the same does

¶39

not merit acceptance. The petitioner’s argument that a motion of no confidence cannot be initiated within a period of 30 months from the date of election is misplaced in the light of the amendment brought to Section 49 of the Act, 1993, by way of Karnataka Act No.49 of 2020. Postamendment, the statutory threshold for initiating a noconfidence motion stands reduced to 15 months. Therefore, any reliance on the unamended provision prescribing 30 months is legally unsustainable. The amended provision is clearly applicable to the present facts, and the petitioner having completed more than 15 months in office is no longer insulated from a motion of no confidence.

¶40

Insofar as the second contention is concerned, namely that the Assistant Commissioner has not complied with the 10-day requirement for issuing notice under Rule 3(2), the said contention is also without merit. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chetana A. Channabasappa vs. The State of Karnataka and

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Others in W.P.No.100364/2025 , decided on 21.01.2025,

¶44

has categorically held that the 10-day time frame contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the KPR Rules, 1994, is a directive for the Assistant Commissioner to act upon the requisition and issue a notice, and that it is not intended to confer any right on the elected representative to challenge the notice solely on account of a marginal delay in processing the requisition. The co-ordinate Bench further clarified that the outer time limit is intended to ensure administrative promptness and cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to invalidate the entire process if there is substantial compliance.

¶45

The third contention regarding non-enclosure of the requisition with the notice under Rule 3(2) is also devoid of merit. It is well-settled that the requirement of annexing the requisition with the notice is not a mandatory obligation under the KPR Rules, 1994. The Rules merely require the Assistant Commissioner to issue notice upon satisfaction that a valid requisition under Rule 3(1) has been received. In the light of the judgment

¶46

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:28208 WP No. 21914 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

in Chetana A. Channabasappa (supra ), it is now settled

¶49

law that non-enclosure of the requisition does not render the notice under Rule 3(2) illegal or void, particularly when the process is initiated in substantial compliance with the Rules.

¶50

In view of the above discussion, and having regard to the legal position enunciated by this Court in Chetana

¶51

A. Channabasappa (supra ), none of the contentions urged by the petitioner merit acceptance. The challenge to the impugned notice issued under Rule 3(2) of the KPR Rules, 1994, is unsustainable either on facts or in law. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

DL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt Pushpa v. Praveen Naik v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa v. Praveen Naik v 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pichandi R Vs State of Karnataka

A G Shivakumar Since Dead by His Legal Heirs Vs State of Karnataka

Shri G v Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Krishnappa Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri M Kudiarasu Vs Smt Bhagyalakshmi

J Srinivas Setty Vs the State of Karnataka