Sri Nagaraju B N Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ MS BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD GATE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶17

MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR-572 101.

¶18

BILI DEVALAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131. (GRAM PANCHAYAT ESTABLISHED UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT)

¶19

SMT CHNADRAMMA W/O MUDDLAIAH AGED MAJOR BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶20

SRI. PRAKASH.B.R S/O RANGASWAMALAH AGED MAJOR BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶21

SRI.B.S.ANANDASWAMY S/O SIDDGANGALAH, AGED MAJOR BILI DEVALAYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶22

SMT. ISHRATUNISHA S/O RIZWAN PASHA AGED MAJOR BOORALINGANAPALLYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶24

SRI. DEWARAJU.D.R S/O RANGASWAMAIAH AGED MAJOR BOORALINGANAPALLYA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶25

SMT.K.B.CHANDRAPRABHA W/O S.N.SHEKAR AGED MAJOR KENKERE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶26

SMT.MAHADEWAMMA W/O VENKATARANGAIAH AGED MAJOR MUTHUGADAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶27

SMT GANGAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY.C.R AGED MAJOR MUTHUGADAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶28

SRI.BOREGOWDA.C.B S/O BETTAIAH, AGED MAJOR BOTTNAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572 131.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PUNITH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI. K VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 TO R12)

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DTD. 17.01.2025 BEARING NO.EJ¯ïJ£ï(PÀÄ):¹Dgï:39/24-25 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION/ R-2 CONVENING MEETING OF NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST PETITIONER / PRESIDENT OF BILL DEVALAYA GRAMA PANCHAYAT / R-3 ON 06.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-A.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petition is filed seeking quashing of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner convening a special meeting on 06.02.2025.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as required under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘ the Rules '), a fifteen days clear notice from the date of service of notice on the petitioner has not been given and the petitioner was only served of the notice on 23.01.2025 i.e., within

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶39

fifteen days from the date of the proposed meeting and hence, the proceedings are illegal.

¶40

He places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.101890 of 2022¹ to support his argument.

¶41

The learned counsel who appears on behalf of the members produces records to indicate that the notice of the meeting was in fact brought to the notice of the petitioner and since he refused the notice, a mahazar was drawn and the notice was affixed on his house and therefore, the argument that there was no clear fifteen days notice is incorrect. He also produces photographs to indicate that the notice was affixed on the petitioner's house.

¶42

In my view, the argument of the petitioner that there was no fifteen days clear notice from the date of service of notice to him cannot be accepted.

¶43

1 Smt.Sharadabai vs. The State of Karnataka, WP No.101890 of 2022 (Dharwad Bench), DD: 31.05.2022, Coram: Hon’ble Justice R.Devdas

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶45

This Court, while interpreting Rule 3(2)² of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha an Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘ the Rules ') in W.P. No.30979 of 2024³ , has categorically held that fifteen days clear notice contemplated under the Rules, is fifteen days notice from the date of the notice of the Assistant Commissioner and not from the date of service of notice to the members.

¶46

It may also be pertinent to state here that if the Assistant Commissioner is required first to serve the

¶47

2 Rule 3(2) of the Rules reads as follows-

¶48

3. Motion of No-confidence.— (1) x x x

¶49

(2) The Assistant Commissioner shall thereafter convene a meeting for the consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-rule (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in Form II. The Assistant commissioner shall make sure that the allegations delivered are specific in the attached list of notice to prepare a report within seven days in respect of Taluk Panchayat Executive Officer:

¶50

Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a Court, the Assistant Commissioner shall adjourn the said meeting and shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay, after giving to the members, after giving to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such adjourned meeting.”

¶51

3 Mrs.Bhagyamma vs. The state of Karnataka and others, WP No.30979/2024, DD: 01.02.2025, Coram: Justice Sanjay Gowda

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5301 WP No. 3402 of 2025

¶53

notice and thereafter fix a date, it is obvious that he would not be able to fix a date at all, fundamentally because, he has to ensure that the entire process of convening a meeting is concluded within one month from the date he receives the notice.

¶54

Rule 3(2) of the Rules categorically states that he only has to give a notice of the proposed meeting and the fifteen days clear notice contemplated therein would obviously be from the date of the notice and not from the date of service of notice.

¶55

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the petition is therefore dismissed .

¶56

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶57

RK

¶58

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Nagaraju B N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaraju B N v. 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

Smt K Jayalakshmi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

K B Nishat Alikhan Vs the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Sri M v Shankarappa Vs the Town Municipality

Vanisha a Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Le Meridian Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Anand Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner