Dismissed¶74

Smt. Sushila v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2025WP/29922/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Grama Panchayat Adhyaksha; Hirehalli Grama Panchayat, Tumkur; notice No. ELN(THU) CR:34/25-26 dated 16.09.2025 in Form-2 by Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub Division; meeting fixed 14.10.2025; Form I request by respondent Nos. 3 to 16; Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of Noconfidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994; Rule 3(1) and 3(2) compliance; clear 15 days notice; mala fide allegation rejected; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The procedure prescribed under Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules, 1994 stands complied with, the petitioner having been served with a clear 15 days' notice of the meeting. ¶73

Smt. Sushila Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29922 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHILA W/O RAMACHANDRAIAH.D.M. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS PRESIDENT TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT DANANAYAKANAPUAR VILLAGE, HIREHALLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCYAHATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶16

SMT. YASHODHA W/O KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶17

SRI. DAKSHINAMURTHY.H.B. S/O BASAVARAJ

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶22

SMT. SHILPA.D W/O MADAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶23

SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O GANGAMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶24

SRI. HONNAIAH S/O LATE MARANARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶25

SRI. KANTHAIAH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶26

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

TUMKUR TALUK,

¶31

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶32

SRI. VIRABHADRASWAMY .C.S. S/O SUGNANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶33

SRI. YATISH KUMAR S/O LATE HANUMANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶34

SRI. VISHNUVARDHAN.N.S. S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶35

SMT. RAMYA W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶36

SMT. TRIVENI JAGADISH W/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SRI. NAGESH .P.G. S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶41

SRI. RAJESH.G.A. S/O LAKSHMAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS MEMBER TO HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE HIREHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HIREHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶44

SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 16; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶45

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING NOTICE OF NO-CONFIDENCE VIDE BEARING NO. ELN(THU) CR:34/25-26 DATED 16.09.2025 ISSUED IN FORM-2 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AS ILLEGAL AND SUFFERS FROM MALA FIDES.

¶46

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

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

The petitioner being the President of the Hirehalli

¶50

Grama Panchayat has filed this petition challenging the notice

¶51

bearing No. ಇಎ�ಎ� (ತು):�ಆ�:34/25-26 dated 16.09.2025 issued

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

by the respondent No.1 fixing the date of meeting as 14.10.2025 to consider a motion of no-confidence moved by the respondent Nos.4 to 16.

¶55

The petitioner was elected as a President of the Hirehalli Grama Panchayat (henceforth referred to as ‘the Panchayat’) at the elections held on 18.07.2023. She contends that certain works were undertaken by the Panchayat through the contractors and that there were serious allegations of misappropriation of funds. In that regard, the petitioner in order to verify the correctness of the allegations, submitted a letter to the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) on 12.09.2025 to provide pass sheets of all the schemes and DCB register from July 2022. However, the PDO refused to provide those documents and when the petitioner verified the works executed, she was shocked to see that the payments were made in respect of already executed works without executing the new works. In that regard, she submitted a complaint to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Tumakuru District. Following this, the respondent Nos.3 to 16 submitted a request in Form I with the

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

respondent No.1 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner. The respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice fixing the date of meeting as 14.10.2025 to consider no-confidence motion moved by respondent Nos.3 to 16 against the petitioner.

¶59

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is

¶60

before this Court.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the remainder of the term of petitioner is only 3 months and therefore, no purpose would be served in allowing the noconfidence motion to be moved by respondent Nos.3 to 16 against the petitioner. Besides this, he contends that the noconfidence motion is designed to harass the petitioner for investigating into the allegations made against the Panchayat Development Officer. He, therefore, contends that the noconfidence motion moved by the respondent Nos.3 to 16 and the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.1 being mala fide deserve to be interfered with.

¶62

Per contra, the learned counsel for the private

¶63

respondents submits that it is the respondent Nos.3 to 16 who

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

have elected the petitioner as the President of the Panchayat and they have every right to move a no-confidence motion once they lacked confidence in the petitioner. He further submits that as long as the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of Noconfidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1994’) is complied, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the no-confidence motion.

¶67

Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the respondent No.1 has acted in accordance with the Rules, 1994 and there is nothing amiss in the procedure adopted and therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶68

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶69

counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 16.

¶70

Respondent Nos.3 to 16 being the members of the Panchayat have submitted a request in Form I before the

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40345 WP No. 29922 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

respondent No.1 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner. The respondent No.1, being satisfied about the request, has issued a notice fixing the date of meeting as 14.10.2025 to consider the no-confidence motion moved by respondent Nos.3 to 16. The petitioner has been served with a clear 15 days notice of the meeting. Therefore, the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(1) and 3(2) of the Rules, 1994 is complied. Under the circumstances, the petitioner who was elected as the President of the Panchayat by the respondent Nos.3 to 16 cannot complain against them when they move a motion of noconfidence against him. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition.

¶74

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶75

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶76

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt. Sushila v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila v. the Assistant 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

Sri. Sanjay Kumar H.S. Vs State of Karnataka

H. Krishna Prabhu Vs the Commissioner

Sri S B Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

D Madenahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Naina Shetty Vs the Regional Commissioner of Stamps

Smt Arundhathi Vs the State of Karnataka