Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Kavita W/o Subhash Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for notice quashing. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents contest petitioners' claims. (Para 3) |
| 3. counsel argument on notice validity. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. petitioners argue insufficient notice period. (Para 5) |
| 5. court's analysis of notice sufficiency. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal provisions on notice requirements. (Para 11) |
| 7. court dismisses writ petition. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
“Whereof it is prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records and issue;
a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice issued by the respondents No: 3 dated 21.04.2025 vide 
as per Annexure-E and E1, in the interest of justice and equity.
b) Issue any writ, order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in circumstances of case, in the ends of justice”.
2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner No.1 is the President of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat and Petitioner No.2 is the Vice President of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat. 12 members of the said Gram Panchayat moved representation before respondent No.3 on 07.03.2025 to initiate no-confidence mot
The court confirmed that the 15 days notice requirement for a no-confidence motion is met by issuance, not receipt, affirming the legitimacy of the notices issued under the governing rules.
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.
Procedural irregularities in no-confidence motions do not invalidate proceedings if they do not prejudice substantive rights, as established in prior judgments.
The requirement of a fifteen clear days' notice for no-confidence motions is mandatory, computed from the date of dispatch, excluding both the date of dispatch and the date of the meeting.
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 ruled that proper notice for a no-confidence motion was served, and the Collector's decision to set it aside was erroneous, affirming the motion's validity.
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
