Balamma Vs Principal Secretary

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 17.10.2025 (ANNEXURE-J) ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT - THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND ETC.,

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 17.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2 convening a meeting of the members of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat on 06.11.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner is the President of Kuppahalli Grama Panchayat and she was elected on 04.08.2023. The members of Panchayat submitted a representation in Form No.1 on 09.10.2025 expressing that they do not have confidence in

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner and requested respondent No.2 to convene a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence. Respondent No.2 thereafter addressed a letter dated 09.10.2025 to the

¶48

Taluka Panchayat seeking particulars namely:

¶49

(i) whether the signatories to Form No.1 were the members of the Panchayat;

¶50

(ii) particulars of the members of the Panchayat along with certified copies;

¶51

(iii) the period during which the petitioner held the office of President; and

¶52

(iv) whether there was provision for taking out no confidence motion against the petitioner.

¶53

The Taluka Pancahyat, in terms of its letter dated 13.10.2025, sought information from respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 in terms of his communication dated 14.10.2025 referred to a circular dated 30.07.2025 issued by the State Government and stated that there is no provision for certifying that the members who submitted Form No.1 were members of the Panchayat. Respondent No.2 thereafter issued the impugned notice dated 17.10.2025 convening a meeting on 06.11.2025 to consider motion of no confidence moved by the

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

members of Panchayat. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notice, is before this Court.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of Noconfidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994' for short) any two members of the Panchayat must personally appear before respondent No.2 and submit a representation in Form No.1 signed by not less than one-third of the total members. He contends that there is no indication that two members of the Panchayat personally appeared before respondent No.2 while submitting Form No.1 and therefore the representation is not in conformity with Rule 3(1) of Rules 1994. He also contends that respondent No.2 after seeking information from the Taluka Panchayat, ought to have awaited necessary clarification or verified the membership of the signatories before issuing the notice fixing the date of meeting. He therefore contends that respondent No.2 has blindly issued notice fixing the date of meeting as 06.11.2025.

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Respondent No.14 has filed a memo stating that

¶62

she has not signed Form No.1 submitted before respondent No.2.

¶63

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has secured the file from the office of respondent No.2 and submits that the communication dated 09.10.2025 addressed by respondent No.2 was only to ascertain the genuinity of the members who had signed Form No.1 and also to verify whether there was any prohibition for taking out a motion of no confidence. He submits that there is no bar for respondent No.2 to ascertain the authenticity of the members who had submitted the representation in Form No.1. He submits that at any rate respondent No.2 has convened a meeting of the members of Panchayat on 06.11.2025 which is within 30 days as mandated in Rule 3(2) of Rules, 1994. He also contends that 10 days clear notice is issued to the petitioner and hence all due procedure as provided in Rules 1994 is complied. He therefore submits that there is no need to interfere with the proceedings of the meeting scheduled on 06.11.2025.

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

I have considered the submission of learned counsel

¶68

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

¶69

A perusal of Section 49(1) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchyat Raj Act, 1993 and Rules 1994, establishes beyond doubt that respondent No.2 does not act in a quasijudicial capacity while considering a representation submitted by the members of the Panchayat requesting him to convene a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence. Once respondent No.2 receives a requisition in the manner prescribed in Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1994, he has no other option than to convene a meeting of the members of Panchayat. As a matter of fact, Rule 3(8) of Rules 1994, mandates that respondent No.2 shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. Therefore, convening of the meeting by respondent No.2 is purely an administrative act required of respondent No.2 under Rules, 1994.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that as regards the procedure prescribed under Rule

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

3(1) of Rules, 1994 relating to service of notice of the meeting and the requirement of law that the respondent No.2 should convene a meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of a requisition, is complied. Therefore patently, the procedure for convening a meeting is strictly complied with by respondent No.2.

¶74

As regards, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that there is no proof that two members of the Panchayat had personally presented the requisition in Form No.1, a perusal of Annexure - C shows that the representation was filed by members in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner and he has acknowledged the receipt of the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the members of the Panchayat were not personally present when they submitted Form No.1.

¶75

If the members of Panchayat were not personally present and if there is any discrepancies in the signature found in representation in Form No.1 or if any of the members of the Paachayat have not signed Form No.1 the same could be tested on the floor in the meeting which is scheduled on 06.11.2025.

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:44456 WP No. 32738 of 2025

¶77

9 -

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

If the petitioner enjoys the support of the maximum number of members, the motion of no confidence will not sail through. Therefore, the petitioner who was elected with the mandate of the other members of the Panchayat, cannot raise a red flag when the same members express lack of confidence.

¶80