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.

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 motion against the President and Vice President of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.3 issued a notice on 17.03.2025 calling for the meeting on 03.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m., to discuss no-confidence motion against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the notice dated 17.03.2025, the petitioners filed writ petition in W.P.No.201001/2025 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.04.2025 dismissed the writ petition vide Annexure-D. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.3 issued fresh impugned notices on 21.04.2025 in Form No.2 under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of no- confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘Rules of 1994’) fixing the date of no-confidence motion as 08.05.2025 at 11.00 a.m. There was no 15 clear days notice while issuing the impugned notices and the same is in violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1994. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned notices dated 21.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexures-E and E1, have filed this writ petition.

3. Respondent Nos.5 to 16 have filed statement of objection denying the averments made in the writ petition and it is contended that the impugned notices are dated 21.04.2025 and the date of meeting is fixed on 08.05.2025. Thus, requirement of the rules is to give 15 clear days notice. The impugned notices are in accordance with the said Rules and there is no illegality in the process. It is stated that notice of meeting was served on all the twelve respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 16 on 22.04.2025. Notice was duly served on another member by name Smt.Neela W/o Sridhar Hegde on 22.04.2025. In respect of other 5 members including the petitioners, notice was served on them on 22.04.2025 itself and they refused to accept the same. The PDO/Secretary of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat has submitted report dated 23.04.2025 to respondent No.3. The copy of the report of PDO/Secretary of Bharatgi Gram Panchayat is produced and marked as Annexure-R1. It is contended that after receipt of report from the PDO, the petitioners have received the notices on 28.04.2025 with dishonest intention as to make it appear that there has been no 15 clear days notice. It is contended that respondent No.3 has complied the mandatory provisions by issuing 15 clear days notice and not of service of notice with 15 clear days. It is stated that even if the date of issuing notices and the meeting date are excluded, there is 15 clear days notice. Hence, the alleged date of service becomes irrelevant for consideration. It is submitted that the petitioners earlier filed writ petition in W.P.No.201001/2025 and by misrepresenting the Court obtained an interim order staying the operation of the notice calling for a meeting to con