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
| 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

Sri Venkataram & Another. v. Assistant Commissioner Kolar
Sangappa v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur District & Anr.
Smt. Roopa v. The State of Karnataka
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Ajay Kumar Sharma and Another
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.
The issuance of a fifteen-day notice for a no-confidence motion is mandatory; however, failure to provide such notice does not invalidate proceedings unless it can be shown to cause prejudice.
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.
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 safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act are mandatory for no-confidence motions; late notice receipt does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.