Dismissed¶79

Rehamath-Ulla-Asadi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/31481/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC dismisses writ petition challenging Chief Officer's notice No. Sabhe/C.R/25/2025-26 dated 04.10.2025 convening no-confidence meeting of City Municipal Council Thirthahalli; requisition signatures of councilors 9 and 17 affirmed; enquiry objection foreclosed after 17.10.2025 interim order and 18.10.2025 meeting where petitioner voted in favour; result of meeting to be given effect; Articles 226 and 227; W.P.No.27949/2025 withdrawn 12.09.2025; Justice R. Nataraj; NC: 2025:KHC:48437.

What did the court decide?

The result of the meeting of no confidence held on 18.10.2025 shall be given effect to. ¶79

Rehamath-Ulla-Asadi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The result of the meeting of no confidence held on 18.10.2025 shall be given effect to.

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice dated 04.10.2025 bearing No. Sabhe/CR/25/2025-26 issued by respondent No.3, and all subsequent proceedings arising from it, should be quashed. +2 more

¶53

Court's answer

The petitioner's first contention that the signatures found on the requisition were not those of respondent Nos.9 and 17 is rejected, since learned counsel affirmed that respondent Nos.9 and 17 had affixed their signatures to the requisition.

¶79

Ratio / Principle

It cannot now lie in the mouth of the petitioner that respondent No.3 was bound to conduct an enquiry whether respondent Nos.9 and 17 had signed the requisition, because pursuant to this Court's order dated 17.10.2025 the motion was permitted to go on (subject to the writ petition's result), the meeting was held on 18.10.2025 where respondent Nos.9 and 17 voted in favour, and the petitioner himself voted in favour of the motion.

¶79

Key takeaways

Nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition; hence the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 31481 of 2025 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (R. Nataraj, J.), decided 24.11.2025 — DISMISSED. Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, elected President of the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli on 27.08.2024, challenged the Chief Officer's (respondent No.3) notice No. Sabhe/C.R/25/2025-26 dated 04.10.2025 convening a councilors' meeting on 18.10.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence, contending that some requisitionists later denied signing and that respondent No.3 ought to have conducted an enquiry before issuing the notice. Learned counsel for the requisitionists affirmed that respondent Nos.9 and 17 had affixed their signatures to the requisition; this Court's interim order dated 17.10.2025 had permitted the motion to proceed subject to the writ petition's result; and the meeting was held on 18.10.2025, at which respondent Nos.9 and 17 and the petitioner himself voted in favour of the motion. Holding that the signature contention was liable to be rejected, that the enquiry grievance could no longer lie in the petitioner's mouth, and that nothing survived for consideration, the Court dismissed the petition and directed that the result of the no-confidence meeting held on 18.10.2025 be given effect to. The petitioner's earlier challenge to a 01.09.2025 meeting in W.P.No.27949/2025 had been withdrawn on 12.09.2025.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31481 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

REHAMATH-ULLA-ASADI S/O D.T.NOOR MOHAMED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PRESIDENT, TOWN PANCHAYATH CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THIRTHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 432.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR B. N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶17

CHIEF OFFICER

¶18

CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶19

THEERTHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 432.

¶20

RAGHAVENDRA S/O SHEENA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R/AT 9^TH CROSS, SOPPUGUDDE THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶24

YATHI RAJ K., S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BETTAMAKKI NEW LAYOUT NAVEENA NILAYA THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶25

RATHNAKARA SHETTY S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PRASHANTHA NILAYA SEEBINAKERE POST BETTAMAKKI, THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶26

NAMIRATH B. R., S/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SEEBINAKERE POST KOLIKAALUGUDDA THERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶27

SUSHEELA D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NIVASA BETTAMAKKI NEW COLONY THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶28

SHABANAM

¶29

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SEEBINAKERE POST

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

GANDHINAGARA

¶33

THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶34

JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY S/O SHRINIVAS SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT UTTHKARSHINI ANNEGOWDA LAYOUT

¶35

SOPPUGUDDE

¶36

THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶37

JYOTHI GANESH W/O GANESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT OPP. TO MAIN BUS STOP THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶38

SANDESH JAWALI

¶39

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT THURPTHI, AZAD ROAD THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶40

B.GANAPATHI

¶41

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶42

R/AT NEAR CORPORATION BANK

¶43

AZAD ROAD, THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶44

JYOTHI MOHAN BHAT W/O MOHAN BHAT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MAIN ROAD, BALEBAILU THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

RAVISHA

¶48

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BALEBAILU NEAR NATIONAL PLANTATION THEERTHAHALI - 577 432.

¶49

GEETHA RAMESH W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BEHIND GARAGE BALEBAILU, THEERTHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶50

A.S.MANJULA NAGENDRA Y., W/O NAGENDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KURUVALLI THEERETHAHALLI - 577 432.

¶51

&RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SMT. SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI M.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R9, R10, R13, R16 AND R17 SRI H.S.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R7; NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.11.2025 R4, R5, R11, R12, R14 AND R15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶53

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF R3 DATED 04.10.2025 AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R3 DATED 04.10.2025 BEARING NO. SABHE/ CR /25/2025-26 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM.

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

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

¶57

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

The petitioner has challenged a notice issued by respondent No.3 bearing No.Sabhe/C.R/25/2025-26 dated 04.10.2025 convening a meeting by the members of the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli to consider a motion of no confidence.

¶60

The petitioner was elected as a President of the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli on 27.08.2024. Six councilors submitted a representation expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner and prayed that a meeting be convened to consider the motion of no confidence. The petitioner doubted the signatures of some of the councilors who had submitted the request and he purportedly enquired with them. Amongst them, one of them stated that she has not signed the representation while two others who had signed the representation affirmed that they did not affix their signatures. After receiving letters from them, the petitioner addressed a

¶61

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

letter to respondent No.3 informing him that three members had denied of having signed the request to move a no confidence motion and therefore, requested respondent No.3 not to proceed with the holding of any meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. Again on 20.09.2025, respondent Nos.6, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17 made a request before respondent No.3 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner. The petitioner altered that someone had forged the signature of respondent No.17. Petitioner contends that after submission of a request to move a no confidence motion on 20.09.2025, respondent Nos.8 & 9 gave letters stating that their names were mentioned in the representation dated 20.09.2025 and that they did not sign the request. The petitioner contended that the respondent No.3 without ascertaining whether the persons who had submitted the representation had signed the request or not, issued the notice proposing to hold a meeting of the councilors on 18.10.2025. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the notice of the meeting.

¶64

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶65

soon after respondent No.8 who had allegedly signed the

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

representation, forwarded a letter denying that she had signed the request, it was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry as to whether she had really signed the representation or not. He therefore contends that respondent No.3 acted hastily in convening a meeting of the councilors. Thus, he contends that the entire process is vitiated and therefore, impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed.

¶70

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17 contends that the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli comprised of 15 councilors. He contends that a requisition was submitted by the councilors expressing lack of confidence and a meeting of the councilors was convened on 01.09.2025 by the petitioner himself. However, he challenged the meeting in W.P.No.27949/2025 which he withdrew on 12.09.2025. Thereafter, a fresh meeting notice was issued on 01.10.2025 proposing to convene a meeting on 18.10.2025. The letters submitted by respondent Nos.8, 9, 17 are concocted and fabricated as respondent No.17 acknowledged that she had signed the requisition dated 20.09.2025. He therefore contends

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

that the requisition to convene a meeting to consider motion of no confidence was moved by 1/3^rd members of the councilors and there is nothing amiss about the procedure adopted. He further contends that meeting on 18.10.2025 was held and the petitioner and all councilors attended the meeting and all the nine present including the President voted in favour of the no confidence motion. He therefore contends that the petitioner has no locus standi to pursue this petition.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute

¶75

the fact that the meeting of the councilors was held on 18.10.2025 and that he too voted in favour of the motion.

¶76

The anchor sheet of the case of the petitioner is that out of the 15 councilors, 1/3^rd had to move a requisition for convening a motion of no confidence. It is his case that out of 6 councilors who had signed the request, two of them denied their signatures and therefore, the minimum number of councilors required for moving a motion of no confidence had not signed. Therefore, he claimed that respondent No.3 could not have convened a meeting to consider motion of no confidence. However, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and

¶77

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

17, has affirmed that respondent Nos.9 & 17 had affixed their signature to the requisition submitted to the President seeking for convening a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. Therefore, the first contention of the petitioner that two members whose signatures were found on the requisition, were not the signatures of respondent Nos.9 & 17, is liable to be rejected. Insofar as contention that respondent No.3 was bound to conduct an enquiry, this Court in terms of an order dated 17.10.2025 had permitted the no confidence motion to go on which, however was subject to the result of this writ petition. Accordingly, the meeting to consider no confidence motion was held on 18.10.2025 whereat respondent No.9 as well as respondent No.17 cast their vote in favour of the motion. The petitioner also voted in favour of the motion. Therefore, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the petitioner that respondent No.3 was bound to conduct an enquiry whether respondent Nos.9 & 17 had signed the requisition. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed .

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:48437 WP No. 31481 of 2025

¶81

10 -

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

The result of the meeting of no confidence held on

¶84

18.10.2025 shall be given effect to.

¶85

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶86

¶87

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice No. Sabhe/C.R/25/2025-26 dated 04.10.2025 issued by respondent No.3 convening a meeting of the members of the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli on 18.10.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, along with subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.¶59
Respondent No.3, Chief Officer, City Municipal Corporation/Council, Thirthahalli · 04.10.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner elected as President of the City Municipal Council, Thirthahalli on 27.08.2024.¶60
Prior proceeding
Six councilors submitted a representation expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner and prayed that a meeting be convened.¶60
Prior proceeding
After councilor(s) denied having signed the request, petitioner wrote to respondent No.3 requesting that no meeting to consider the no-confidence motion be held.¶63
Prior proceeding
On 20.09.2025, respondent Nos.6, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17 made a fresh request before respondent No.3 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner; petitioner alleged forgery of respondent No.17's signature and that respondent Nos.8 and 9 gave letters denying they signed.¶63
Prior proceeding
An earlier requisition-based meeting was convened on 01.09.2025 by the petitioner himself; he challenged it in W.P.No.27949/2025 and withdrew that petition on 12.09.2025.¶70
Prior proceeding
Fresh meeting notice issued on 01.10.2025 proposing to convene a meeting on 18.10.2025.¶70
Prior proceeding
By order dated 17.10.2025 this Court permitted the no-confidence motion to proceed, subject to the result of the present writ petition.¶79
Prior proceeding
Meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was held on 18.10.2025; all nine present including the President voted in favour of the motion.¶73
Prior proceeding
At the 18.10.2025 meeting respondent Nos.9 and 17 cast their votes in favour of the motion, and the petitioner himself voted in favour of the motion.¶79
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's counsel did not dispute that the meeting was held on 18.10.2025 and that the petitioner voted in favour of the motion.¶75

Rehamath-Ulla-Asadi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehamath-Ulla-Asadi 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

Nanjundappa Vs the State Ofkarnataka

Sri. Farooq Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mr. Jai Kumar. R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rafiq Khan Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shanthamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Byre Gowda Vs B S Puttaraju