Procedural irregularities in no-confidence motions do not invalidate proceedings if they do not prejudice substantive rights, as established in prior judgments.

ORDER :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notice in file No.Chunavane/03/2025-26 dated 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:

Petitioner No.1 is the Vice President and petitioner No.2 is the Member of the Mashal Gram Panchayat. The members of the said Gram Panchayat have submitted a representation to initiate no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President of Mashal Gram Panchayat to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 issued a notice calling for a meeting to discuss no-confidence motion against the petitioner No.1 fixing a meeting scheduled to be held on 13.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned notice, filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 has not complied the mandatory provisions of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘Rules of 1994’). He submits that respondent No.3 has initiated proceedings based on a representation submitted by respondent Nos.5 to 23. He also submits that respondent No.3 has to satisfy himself about the identity of the members before issuing the impugned notice. He further submits that in the absence of copy of notice of intention to move no-confidence along with Form No.1, the presentation of Form No.1 notice by the members of the Gram Panchayat to respondent No.3 is totally contrary to the prescribed procedure under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as well as Rules of 1994. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in the absence of copy of notice of intention to move no-confidence along with Form No.1 is only an irregularity and not an illegality. She further submits that issuance of notice of intention to move no- confidence motion is only to notify to the petitioners regarding the representation submitted by the members of the Mashal Gram Panchayat.

6. To buttress her arguments, she places reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Laxmavva vs. the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary and Others reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1028 . Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned Counsel for respondent No.13 adopts the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader and prays to dismiss the petition.

8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties to the petition.

9. It is not disputed that the petitioner No.1 is the Vice President of Mashal Gram Panchayat and petitioner No.2 is a member of the said Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.5 to 23 submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 to initiate no-confidence motion against petitioner No.1. On receipt of the representation from the members of said Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 issued impugned notice on 23.04.2025 calling for a meeting to discuss no-confidence motion against the President and Vice President on 13.05.2025 at 11.30 a.m. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 has not complied the provisions of Rule 3 of Rules of 1994 i.e., notice of intention to move no-confidence along with Form No.1. Thus, the action of respondent No.3 is contrary to Rule 3 of Rules of 1994.

10. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgm