Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
ASHOK S. KINAGI
Ningappa S/o Khajappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges notice for no-confidence motion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on compliance of procedural rules. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessment of respondent no.3's actions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. clarification on irregularity vs illegality. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 15) |
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 learn
Procedural irregularities in no-confidence motions do not invalidate proceedings if they do not prejudice substantive rights, as established in prior judgments.
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.
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.
The omission of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 means no allegations are required for a no-confidence motion under Sub-section (1).
Procedural compliance under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is mandatory; deviations may invalidate proceedings. The court confirmed that the notice for No Confidence Motion adhered to st....
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
