Dismissed¶49

Smt.Kusuma K S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025WP/386/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

No-confidence motion against Grama Panchayat President; adjourned special meeting refixed pursuant to Court direction; Section 49(1) Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act 1993; ten days' notice; requisition by 16 panchayat members; Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub-Division; notification ELN/CR/06/2024-25 dated 07.01.2025; meeting fixed for 10.01.2025; W.P. No.35385 of 2024 dismissed; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition (LB-RES) dismissed by single Judge, N S Sanjay Gowda, High Court of Karnataka, 09.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The learned counsel's contention that every special meeting convened for considering a no-confidence motion should be preceded by a ten-day gap cannot be accepted. ¶42

Smt.Kusuma K S Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 386 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.KUSUMA K S AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O HONNARAJU K. PRESIDENT, KUDUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, 5TH BLOCK, SHIVAGANGE ROAD, MAHATHANAGAR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANDANAPPA GURAPPA BALLOLLI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT'S SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE -560 001.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGR TALUK ADMISTRATIVE OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, B. M. ROAD, RAMANAGAR.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶17

THE KUDUR GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY PANHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KUDURGRAMA PANHAYATH, MAGADI TALUQ, RAMNAGAR DIST.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. SHRIKANTA.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. ELN/CR/06/2024-25 DTD. 07.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner had filed W.P. No.35385 of 2024 challenging the notice dated 19.12.2024, by which the special meeting had been convened to consider the motion of no confidence which was intended to be moved by 16 members of

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶27

Panchayat who had submitted a requisition on 18.12.2024.

¶28

This writ petition was entertained and an interim order was granted, as a consequence of which, the special meeting on 07.01.2025 was not conducted and the meeting was thereafter adjourned, in view of the interim order granted in W.P. No.35385 of 2024.

¶29

On 07.01.2025, this Court considered W.P. No.35385 of 2024 on merits and came to the conclusion that the special meeting convened was valid and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.

¶30

While dismissing the writ petition, this Court took note of the fact that in view of the interim order granted, the meeting which had been convened on 07.01.2025 had been adjourned.

¶31

This Court therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to notify the members that the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶34

meeting to consider the motion for no confidence would be taken up on the date to be fixed by him

¶35

pursuant to the said order and this Court also directed that the meeting shall be convened within a period of two weeks.

¶36

The Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the dismissal of the writ petition has fixed the special meeting on 10.01.2025.

¶37

Being aggrieved by this notice, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition.

¶38

The petitioner contends that since the meeting was adjourned, a fresh motion for no confidence could not have been considered in a special meeting without a 10 days’ notice as contemplated under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

¶39

The learned counsel contends that every special meeting convened for considering the no

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶41

confidence motion should be preceded by a ten day gap.

¶42

In my view, this argument cannot be accepted.

¶43

As already stated above, on 19.12.2024, the Assistant Commissioner had convened a special meeting on 07.01.2025. This Court in W.P. No.35385 of 2024 has upheld the said notice and held that there was indeed ten days time before convening of the special meeting and therefore, there was no merit in the challenge to the said notice.

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner has now merely fixed the date in light of the dismissal of the petition by the petitioner as directed by this Court.

¶45

It is therefore, clear that the contention that a ten day period should precede the date fixing the special meeting cannot be attracted in a case of this kind i.e., in a case relating to a meeting which

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:789 WP No. 386 of 2025

¶48

had been adjourned because of an interim order granted by this Court.

¶49