Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, RAJESH RAI K.
Veena T.,W/o. Kumara Swamy R. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By It's Secretary Revenue Department – Respondent
| 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-Divisi
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.
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
