The distinction between 'irregularity' and 'illegality' is critical in procedural law, where minor procedural lapses do not invalidate actions unless they substantially affect a party's rights.

ORDER :

M.I.ARUN, J.

Petitioner in WP.No.201376/2025 and petitioner No.1 in WP.No.201230/2025 – Noorjahan W/o Mahimood Sab was the President of Masarkal Gram Panchayat. Sixteen Panchayat members (respondent Nos.7 to 22 in WP.No.201376/2025 and respondent Nos.6 to 21 in WP.No.201230/2025) moved a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner and submitted a request to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to hold the meeting of no-confidence. The same is dated 03.04.2025. Pursuant to the said request, a meeting has been held on 28.04.2025 and the petitioner has been removed from the post of the President. Thereafter, elections have been conducted to the post of President.

2. WP.No.201230/2025 was filed on 25.04.2025, challenging the no-confidence motion held against the petitioner herein. WP.No.201376/2025 has been filed on 14.05.2025, challenging the fresh elections being conducted to Masarkal Gram Panchayat.

3. In both the writ petitions, the ground of challenge is that, as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for brevity), a minimum number of two Gram Panchayat members are required to be present before the Assistant Commissioner while submitting the request for no-confidence and only thereafter the Assistant Commissioner can take that request and initiate no- confidence motion in accordance with law. It is alleged that as this requirement having not been fulfilled, the no-confidence motion against the petitioner herein is liable HC-KAR to be set aside and the subsequent election conducted to Masrkal Gram Panchayat is also required to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate and also the learned counsel appearing for private respondents, who are members of Masarkal Gram Panchayat and at whose behest the no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioners, together submit that all the requirements under law has been fulfilled and no-confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner herein in accordance with law. They specifically contend that, in fact all 16 members who are the private respondents herein were present before the Assistant Commissioner when a request was made by submitting the memorandum under Form-1 under Rule 3(1) of the Rules was presented to the Assistant Commissioner. However, it is submitted that by mistake the Assistant Commissioner has not endorsed on the request letter the details of the members present before him while submitting the request.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions further submits that, if required he will file personal affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that, 16 members were present when the request for no-confidence under Form-1 under Rule 3(1) was submitted to him as against two persons as envisaged in law.

6. The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petitions is, “Whether the mandatory requirements are complied with in no-confidence motion moved against the petitioners herein?”

7. As admitted by the petitioner herself except for two Gram Panchayat members no being present before the Assistant Commissioner while submitting the Form-1 under Rule 3(1), all other requirements under law have been complied.

8. Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 reads as under:

“49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat.-

[1] Every Adhyaksha or Upa