Smt Arundhathi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:40120 WP No. 30620 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30620 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT ARUNDHATHI W/O NAGALINGAPPA, PRESIDENT OF CK PURA GRAMAPANCHAYATHI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HARIHARAPURA POST AND VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU-572116.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND EX OFFICIO SECRETARY, RURAL AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA,

¶14

BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572132.

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHENNAKESHAVAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATHI, NIDAGAL HOBLI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40120 WP No. 30620 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572116.

¶21

RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. HK KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. CHUNAVANE C R.38/2025-26 DATED 19.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE R3 CALLING FOR THE MEETING FOR MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE FIXING THE DATE ON 14.10.2025 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC,.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner being the president of the Chennakeshavapura Grama Panchayat has filed this petition challenging a notice dated 19.09.2025 issued by respondent No.3 by which he convened a meeting of the members of the Panchayat to consider a no conference motion on 14.10.2025.

¶28

The petitioner contends that she was elected as the president of the Panchayat and that she had performed her duties without any blemish. However, an inimically ill-disposed member named Prabhakara K had conspired with the other

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40120 WP No. 30620 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

members and had made allegations which resulted in an enquiry conducted by a committee consisting of the Tahsildar, Executive Officer and Officer from the Social Welfare Department. Thereafter, the said Sri Prabhakara K and his associates had submitted a representation Form No.1 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner and submitted a representation before respondent No.3 on 16.09.2025. The respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 19.09.2025 fixing the date of meeting on 14.10.2025. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the said notice.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the term of the petitioner is to expire within one and a half months from now. Therefore, there is no justification for moving a no confidence motion. He also contends that in the representation filed by the members of the Panchayat, no allegation was made against the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.2 without application of mind had blindly issued the notice.

¶33

Per contra , learned AGA for respondent No.1 submitted that there is no prohibition of law against the

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40120 WP No. 30620 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

members of the Panchayat submitting a representation in Form No.1 before respondent No.3 expressing lack of confidence if the remainder term of the petitioner is only one and half months. He contends that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma v/s State of Karnataka in WA.No.844/2018 and Other Connected Matters had categorically held that Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Panchayathraj Act, 1993 is no longer available on the statute book. Therefore, there is no need for the members to make any allegations and it was sufficient for them to submit a representation expressing lack of confidence.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents.

¶38

The members of the Panchayat have submitted a representation on 16.09.2025. A copy of the notice of no confidence was served on the petitioner, giving 15 clear days notice of the meeting dated 14.10.2025. Therefore, there is sufficient compliance of Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election Of Adhyaksha And

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40120 WP No. 30620 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Upadhyaksha Of Taluk Panchayat) Rules, 1994. As rightly contended by learned AGA for the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court after having noticed that Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Panchayathraj Act, 1993 is no longer on the statute book had held that even if a representation is filed containing allegations then the concerned officer has to treat it as a representation under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Panchayathraj Act, 1993 and proceed with the no confidence motion.

¶42

In that view of the matter, both the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not merit consideration. Consequently, the petition is dismissed .

¶43

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

PNV

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt Arundhathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Arundhathi 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

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

H. Krishna Prabhu Vs the Commissioner

Sri S B Nanjundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sushila Vs the Assistant Commissioner

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

Smt Naina Shetty Vs the Regional Commissioner of Stamps