Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
M.I. Arun, J
Noorjahan, W/o Mahimood Sab – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of no-confidence motion and election (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations regarding procedural requirements (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal question regarding procedural compliance (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. relevant legal provisions for no-confidence motion (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. analysis of submissions and procedural fulfillment (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. ruling on validity of no-confidence motion (Para 16) |
| 7. dismissal of writ petitions (Para 17) |
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 n
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.
Procedural irregularities in no-confidence motions do not invalidate proceedings if they do not prejudice substantive rights, as established in prior judgments.
The interpretation of 'majority' of the members of the panchayat notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the KPR Act, 1994 is crucial in determining the validity of a motion of no-confidence.
Procedural requirements for considering a motion of no confidence are mandatory and must be strictly followed, as interpreted from Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rules 1959 apply to the meeting of a no-confidence motion, and the essential requirements for passing a no-confidence motion include the prese....
A no-confidence motion can proceed in the absence of prescribed procedural rules unless formally challenged. Disqualifications must be established through due process before they impede participation....
The court ruled that compliance with procedural safeguards under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is critical for no-confidence motions, affirming that minor deviations do not invalidate democrati....
Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is crucial, but minor deviations that do not demonstrate prejudice may not invalidate no-confidence proceedings....
The court upheld that a motion of no-confidence can be convened by the Assistant Commissioner as per statutory requirements, emphasizing strict adherence to the ten-day notice provision without addit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
