Sri. Shankaramurthy N C Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31795 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHANKARAMURTHY N.C., S/O CHANDAIAH N.C., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ADHYAKSHA OF NIDAGATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT NIDAGATTA VILLAGE, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228.

¶15

THE NIDATTA GRAMAPANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH, RPTD BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NIDAGATTA VILLAGE, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548.

¶19

SRI. RAJAPPA N.K., S/O. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶20

SRI. VISWANATHA N.C. S/O. CHANDAIAHKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶21

SMT. GEETHA N.C, W/O. TIRUMALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶22

SMT. LAXMAMMA, W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶23

MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶24

SMT. GEETHANJALI, W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶25

SMT. SHYLAJA, D/O. THIMMALAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶26

THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NIDAGATTA VILLAGE, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548.

¶27

SRI. NINGARAJU, S/O. HUCHHAPPA,

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶29

3 -

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT. TIPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NIDAGATTA POST, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548

¶32

SRI. VENKTESH H, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH NIDAGATTA POST, R/AT. DASARAKALONI, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548

¶33

SMT. GEETHA B.L, W/O. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT. CHATNAHALLI VILLAGE, NIDAGATTA POST, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548

¶34

SMT. SAVITHA, W/O. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MEMBER OF NIDAGATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R/AT. NEERGUNDAMATHA, NIDAGATTA POST, SAKRAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 548.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ELN/GRA.PAM. AVISWASA/06/2025-26 DATED 08-10-2025 IN FORM NO.2 (NOTICE UNDER RULES 3(2)) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.ELN/Gra.Pam.Aviswasa/06/2025-26 dated 08.10.2025

¶44

issued by the respondent No.2 convening a meeting of the members of the panchayath on 27.10.2025 to consider a motion of no-confidence.

¶45

The petitioner was elected as an Adhyaksha of the respondent No.3 on 09.02.2024. The members of the respondent No.3 submitted a notice in Form No.1 before the respondent No.2 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner. The respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner and other members of the panchayath proposing to hold a meeting of the members on 27.10.2025. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner with a good intention to make his constituency a model village panchayath had actively taken up development works, which was appreciated by the State Government and a prize was awarded. The Panchayath was also selected for the Gandi Grama Puraskar for the period 2023-24 and awarded a cash prize of Rs.5,00,000/-. He contends that his work was appreciated by everyone residing within the panchayath. He contends that the members of the panchayath without any good reason, submitted a request in Form No.1 before the respondent No.2 and requested him to convene a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner has only three months’ time remaining and if he is removed from the post of president, the ongoing work undertaken by the panchayath would be affected. He is therefore before this Court assailing the notice issued by the respondent No.2.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions and submitted that there is no reason for the members to move a resolution and the one moved by them is politically ill-motivated and therefore prays that the same be

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

set at nought, more particularly when the petitioner has only three months term remaining.

¶53

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner became the president of the panchayath after he won the confidence of the other members of the panchayath. Now that he has lost the confidence of the members, the members are entitled to move a motion of no-confidence. He submits that after 1/3 of the members had submitted a request in Form No.1 before the respondent No.2, steps were taken to notify the petitioner as well as the other members about the convening of the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. He therefore submits that there is no procedural error in taking out proceedings. He also submits that the question whether the allegations made by the members of the panchayath to move a no-confidence motion are genuine or not cannot be gone into these proceedings. He also submits that there is no embargo in law to proceed against the petitioner on the ground that he has only three months remaining.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶58

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶59

As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the petitioner was elected as president of the panchayath after securing the confidence of the members of the panchayath. The petitioner has been functioning as the president of the panchayath from February 2024. Now the members have expressed lack of confidence in the petitioner for whatever reason and have moved a motion of no-confidence by submitting the request in the prescribed form with the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has issued a notice as prescribed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj ('Motion of No Confidence' against Adhyaksha and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 and has convened a meeting of the members on 27.10.2025. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court does not see any procedural error in the respondent No.2 convening the meeting of the members of the panchayath to consider the motion of no-confidence. As regards the claim of the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner,

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42163 WP No. 31795 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the law is now well settled in view of the Judgment of Division

¶63

Bench of this Court in Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka (WA.No.2872/2013 c/w WA No.853/2018), where the Division Bench of this Court after noticing that Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1993' for short), is deleted from the statute book had held that even if allegations are made in the motion of no-confidence that same shall be treated as a motion of no-confidence under Section 49(1) of the Act, 1993.

¶64

In view of the above, the impugned notice cannot

¶65

be disturbed. Consequently, the writ petition is lacks merits and is dismissed .

¶66

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶67

permitted to file a memo appearance within ten days.

¶68

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶69

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri. Shankaramurthy N C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shankaramurthy N C 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 Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Gangalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Parasmal Vs the Commissioner

Gundappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Laguma Reddy Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Ratnamma Vs the State of Karnataka