Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, RAJESH RAI K., JJ.
Smt. Veena T.,W/o. Kumara Swamy R. Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By It's Secretary Revenue Department – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.207 Of 2025 (LB-RES) C/W, Writ Petition No.19571 Of 2025 (LB-RES), Writ Petition No.20174 Of 2025 (LB-RES), Writ Petition No.4557 Of 2025 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 19-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Local Governance
Act Referred
KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.52
KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.49, S.57(2)
KARNATAKA ZILLA PARISHADS, TALUK PANCHAYAT SAMITHIS, MANDAL PANCHAYATS AND NYAYA PANCHAYATS ACT: S.47(3)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.3
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging notices relating to no-confidence motions against local elected officials, claiming violations of notice requirements under the Panchayat Raj Act and procedural irregularities in the notices provided.
Findings of Court:
The necessity of a clear fifteen-day notice for no-confidence motions was affirmed as mandatory; the starting point for notice computation is the date of dispatch.
Issues: The legitimacy of no-confidence notice timelines, whether they should be construed as mandatory or directory, and if non-compliance invalidates proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of fifteen clear days' notice is critical for upholding democratic procedures in local governance; the date of dispatch, not the date of receipt, governs the validity of such notices.
Result: Writ Appeal No.207/2025 is dismissed, along with Writ Petitions No.20174/2025, 19571/2025, and 4557/2025.
For the Appellant : Sri. Andanappa Gurappa Ballolli, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. Pratima Honnapura, Aag A/W, Smt. Mamatha Shetty, Aga, Sri. Chandrashekar L., Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ appeal and petitions (Para 1) |
| 2. list of writ petitions and their objectives (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. key legal questions regarding notice requirements (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments from the petitioner regarding notice compliance (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. arguments from the respondents focusing on statutory interpretation (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. final court decisions on notice provisions (Para 26 , 27 , 37) |
| 7. detailed analysis affirming notice calculation basis (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. conclusion on notice requirements in legal context (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. final court order concluding the cases (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
1.Writ Appeal No.207/2025 is filed against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35255/2024 (LB-RES).
Writ Petition No.19571/2025 is filed seeking to quash the meeting notice given in Form-II, vide No.ALN-GraPan- Avishwasa-01/2025-26, dated 24.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure 'K' to the Writ Petition.
Writ Petition No.20174/2024 is filed seeking to quash the Notice dated 23.06.2025 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere- respondent No.2 bearing No.Election:CR/26/2025-26 whereby respondent no. 2 has convened meeting on 11.07.2025 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the no-confidence motion moved against the petitioner/President of Nagenahalli Grama Panchayat, vide Annexure 'A' and all further proceedings pursuant to the notice.
Writ Petition 4557/2025 is preferred seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 30.01.2025 bearing No.ELN(KU) CR.48/24-25 issued by respondent no.2.
2. We have heard Shri. P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.20174/2025, Shri. A.M.Maheshwarappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.19571/2025 and Shri. Andanappa Gurappa Ballolli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.207/2025. Shri. Sadanand G. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.4557/2025.
Shri. Chandrashekar L, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 10 in W.A.No.207/2025, Shri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.14 in W.P.No.19571/2025 and Shri. N.K.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.20174/2025. Shri V. Rajaiah, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6, Caveator/respondent No.8, 11 Caveator/respondent No.15 and 16 in W.P.No.4557/2025.
Smt. Pratima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State in Writ Appeal No.207/2025, W.P.No.19571/2025 and 20174/2025. Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.4557/2025.
3. These writ petitions have been placed before us for consideration on account of Reference Order dated 28.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.4557/2025, Reference Order dated 05.03.2025 in Writ Appeal No.207/2025 the Reference Order dated 10.07.2025 in Writ Petitions No.19571/2025 and 20174/2025. The reference has been made on account of the difference of opinion expressed in three judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court.
4. On a conjoint reading of the orders of Reference, we notice that these four questions have been placed for our consideration:-
(i) Whether the requirement of giving “not less than fifteen clear days' notice” under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, is to be construed as mandatory or directory?
(ii) Whether the statutory phrase “give a notice of not less than fifteen clear days” refers to the date of dispatch of notice or the date of its actual delivery to the members?
(iii) Whether both the date of receipt of notice and the date of meeting are to be excluded in computing the "15 c
