1. Only point which arises for consideration in this writ petition is:

“Whether No-confidence Motion dated 28-06-2018 Annexure-A moved by the Members of Honenahalli Grama Panchayat (for short “Grama Panchayat”) suffers from legal infirmity?”

2. Petitioner and respondents 5 to 14 were elected as Members of Honenahalli Grama Panchayat in the Elections held during 2015. Petitioner came to be elected as ‘Adhyaksha’ of the Grama Panchayat. A representation dated 28-06-2015 signed by respondents 5 to 14 expressing No-confidence in the petitioner and alleging that petitioner is not evincing interest in carrying out public works of the panchayat and also alleging that he is not empowered under the Act to approve Private Layout had approved layout plan as the President of Grama Panchayat by affixing his signature to the plan contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, expressing No-confidence in petitioner, said motion came to be moved by respondents 5 to 14 by submitting same to the 2nd respondent on 28-06-2018. 2nd respondent in turn directed 3rd respondent to submit factual report on the allegations made in the said No6 confidence Motion by communication dated 29-06-2018 Annexure-B. Accordingly, 3rd respondent submitted a report to 2nd respondent on 07-07-2018 Annexure-C and on going through same 2nd respondent by communication dated 18-07-2018 Annexure D directed the 3rd respondent to specifically furnish a report as to whether the said No-confidence Motion would attract the provision of Section 49(2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) or not. On receipt of said communication, 3rd respondent on 19-07-2018 Annexure E submitted further report stating that prima facie contents of No- confidence Motion seems to be true and correct.

3. It is thereafter 3rd respondent has issued notice dated 21-07-2018-Annexure-F to all the Members in Form No.2 under Rule 3(2) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short hereinafter referred as “Rules”) by summoning a Meeting of the Grama Panchayat to be held on 04-08-2018 at 11.00 a.m. for consideration of No- Confidence Motion dated 28.06.2018-Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by same, petitioner has filed this writ petition and has sought for quashing of the meeting notice dated 21-07-2018 Annexure-F and to declare the Motion of No-confidence dated 28-06-2018 - Annexure-A moved by respondents 5 to 14 against petitioner as illegal.

4. I have heard the arguments of Shriyuths M.H.Prakash appearing for petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Nishanth A.V. appearing for respondents 5, 6, 8 to 14, Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar appearing for respondent-7. Respondents 3 and 4 are served and unrepresented. Perused the original records made available by learned Government Advocate.

5. It is the contention of Shri. M.H. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that decision making process by the 3rd respondent is void inasmuch as 2nd respondent has relied upon the report of 3rd respondent which is based on a photo copy of the plan alleged to have been signed by the petitioner and despite 3rd respondent concluding in his first report that original plan not being available, 2nd respondent could not have accepted the allegations made against petitioner for moving the No-confidence Motion by respondents 5 to 14 as prima facie true and said conclusion is based on surmises and conjecture. In that regard, he would rely upon Circular dated 07-02-2018 issued by 1st respondent to contend that for No-confidence Motion being accepted to summon the meeting or meeting being convened, 2nd respondent will have to satisfy itself with regard to correctness of the allegations made in the No-confidence Motion, inasmuch as language of Section 49(2) which provision came to be inserted by Act 44/2015 with effect from 31-12-2015 is clear and unambiguous, since office o