Dismissed¶53

Sri. Threemurthy B T v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2025WP/246/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (NC: 2025:KHC:1008), WP No. 246 of 2025 (LB-RES), decided 10.01.2025 by N S Sanjay Gowda J — no-confidence motion against Adhyaksha/President of Jodihochihalli Grama Panchayat; mala fides/retaliation objection rejected as irrelevant; requisition by members held valid under 'the provisions of the Act' (Act not named in judgment); Assistant Commissioner's convening of special meeting held lawful; Articles 226 & 227; interim order in W.P.No.34476/2024 with liberty for fresh proceedings; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Whether a no-confidence motion is vitiated by mala fides is wholly irrelevant; it is the Adhyaksha who must prove that he has the confidence of all the members of the Panchayat. ¶52

Sri. Threemurthy B T Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the initiation of no-confidence motion proceedings against the petitioner (Adhyaksha/President of Jodihochihalli Grama Panchayath) was mala fide and therefore required to be quashed. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

Whether a no-confidence motion is vitiated by mala fides is wholly irrelevant; it is the Adhyaksha who must prove that he has the confidence of all the members of the Panchayat.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The requisition was given as required under the provisions of the Act, and on the basis of the requisition the Assistant Commissioner acted in accordance with law by convening the special meeting.

¶52

Key takeaways

There is no infirmity in convening the special meeting; the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the President (Adhyaksha) of Jodihochihalli Grama Panchayath, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru, seeking quashing of a notice dated 03.01.2025 (No. ELN/GRA.PAN AVISHWASA/02/2024-25) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, convening a special meeting on 21.01.2025 for a no-confidence motion. Background: a requisition of 04.12.2024 by nine members (signed by eight) had led to a meeting fixed for 31.12.2024, stayed by interim order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.34476/2024, which expressly preserved liberty for fresh proceedings including a no-confidence proceeding; the members thereupon renewed the motion on 31.12.2024. Petitioner's counsel contended the motion was retaliatory (members facing disqualification for absence) and mala fide. Held (N S Sanjay Gowda, J): mala fides behind a no-confidence motion are wholly irrelevant, the right to move such motion vesting in the members, and it is for the Adhyaksha to prove he has the confidence of all members; the requisition satisfied the requirements of the (unnamed) Act and the Assistant Commissioner acted in accordance with law in convening the special meeting. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI THREEMURTHY B T S/O TIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT BYALADALU VILLAGE, BANOOR POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU -577107.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NAGARAJA N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ BANGALORE-560009.

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB DIVISION,

¶16

TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 228.

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577228.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577548.

¶19

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JODIHOCHIHALLI,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶22

KADUR TALUK, CHICKAMAGALURU – 577175.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI BOPANNA BELLIYAPA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 03.01.2025 MADE IN NO. ELN/GRA.PAN AVISHWASA/02/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED ANNEXURE - P.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION TO STAY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONVENING MEETING OF NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST PETITIONER/ PRESIDENT OF JODIHOCHIHALLI GRAM PANCHAYTH/ R-2 NOTICE ON 03.01.2025 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE VIDE ANNEXURE P.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

These facts are not in dispute:

¶29

On 04.12.2024, a requisition was made by nine members of the Panchayat, though signed only by eight members, to the Assistant Commissioner, requesting convening of a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence that they intended to move.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶32

On the basis of this notice, the Assistant Commissioner convened a meeting on 31.12.2024.

¶33

However, petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No.34476 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 18.12.2024 granted an interim order, however, while granting the interim order, this Court also stated as follows:

¶34

“ BMSPJ : 18.12.2024

¶35

Sri D.R.Ravishankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is heard on the grant of ad interim order. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in similar circumstances where the concerned Panchayat Development Officer [PDO] has endorsed the signatures of the members who have allegedly filed intention to move No Confidence Motion, interim order has been granted by this Court.

¶36

In the light of this submission, and on perusal of the interim order granted in W.P.No.34373/2024, interim order is granted staying all further proceedings

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶39

pursuant to the Notice dated 09.12.2024 [Annexure-M] but observing that this interim order shall not prejudice any fresh proceedings [including the proceeding for No Confidence Motion against the petitioner] that could be permissible in law.

¶40

Smt. Spoorthi V., a learned High Court Government Pleader, is called upon to accept notice for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Nagarajappa, a learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5, is called upon to accept notice for these respondents.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner shall ensure that the copies of the petition are served on the respective chambers at the earliest.”

¶42

As could be seen from the above, this Court directed

¶43

fresh proceedings could be initiated notwithstanding the interim order granted by this Court, including a proceeding for no confidence motion against the petitioner, as permissible in law.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶46

On the basis of this liberty granted by this Court, the members have once again gave a motion of no confidence on 31.12.2024 and on the basis of this requisition, a meeting is scheduled to be convened on 21.01.2025 to enable the signatories to the requisition to move a motion of no confidence.

¶47

Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the members were consistently absent, the petitioner had given a petition to the authorities to disqualify them and as a retaliation, they have moved a motion of no confidence. She therefore submits that the entire initiation of proceedings was mala fide and are therefore required to be quashed.

¶49

The right to move a no confidence motion vests with the members of the Grama Panchayat and the reasons for moving a motion of no confidence

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:1008 WP No. 246 of 2025

¶52

implies that they have no confidence in the Adhyaksha. Whether this move is vitiated by mala fides or not would be wholly irrelevant, since it is the Adhyaksha who will have to prove that he has the confidence of all the members of Panchayat, the requisition was given as required under the provisions of the Act. On the basis of the requisition, the Assistant Commissioner has acted in accordance with law by convening a special meeting.

¶53

In my view, there is no infirmity in convening the special meeting and therefore, the petition lacks merit. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶54

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶55

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri. Threemurthy B T v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Threemurthy B T v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Mahesha Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Sudha Savanur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kalpana N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Leena Udayashankar Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri.Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dr C v Nayak Vs the Commissioner