The court affirmed that the term 'or' in the relevant statute allows for a joint no-confidence motion against both officials, validating a common requisition notice.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 bearing No. Kandaya/ Chunavane/ AA. GO/06/2024-25 issued by the R1 authority marked as Annexure-C in respect of Adhyaksha (Petitioner No.1) in the interest of justice and equity.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14.02.2025 bearing No. Kandaya/ Chunavane/ AA. GO/06/2024-25 issued by the R1 authority marked as Annexure-D in respect of Upadhyaksha (Petitioner No.2) in the interest of justice and equity.

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned representation/Form No.1 dated 03.02.2025 as submitted by the respondents No. 3 to 14 vide Annexure-B in the interest of justice and equity.

iv. Such other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fits on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner No.1-Adhyaksha and the petitioner No.2-Upadhyaksha are before this Court aggrieved by the notices dated 14.2.2025 issued by respondent No.1 fixing the date for consideration of the no confidence motion as 3.3.2025 at 11.00 a.m. in the office of grama panchayath, Hiregowdnagar, Kustagi Taluk, Koppal District.

3. Sri.Anand R.Kolli., learned counsel for the petitioner submits;

3.1. Firstly, the requisition notice issued under Form No.1 in pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is a joint requisition notice which has been issued as regards both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and as such the requisition notice itself is not in accordance with the applicable law, in as much as the words used in the statute are Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha and as such single requisition notice could not have been issued in respect of both the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.

3.2. The second submission is that in order to consider both the notice of motions, the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner has fixed the same date, time and venue, as if both the resolutions would be considered at the same time which could not be so done, there being separate resolutions required to be passed.

3.3. Lastly, he submits that in terms of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Gram Panchayat (Motion of No Confidence against Adhyakahs and Upadhayaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules 1994 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994”), if there is no quorum within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the meeting shall stand dissolved and notice given under Sub- rule (1) shall lapse. In this regard he submits that, if the meeting were convened and the first motion were to be taken up insofar as the Adhyaksha is concerned and if the same were to go on for more than one hour, then the second notice would have automatically lapsed.

3.4. Thus, his submission is that the intention of legislature is not to have a joint or a common meeting but to have separate meetings under separate notices. In this regard, he refers to Section 49 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1993’) and submits that the usage of the words Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha wherever found, is with a disjunctive in between of the word “or” i.e., say Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, at no place in Section 49 is a conjunctive “and” used, viz., Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Therefore, there being a disjunctive “or” in between the words Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, there should have been separate notices of requisition under Form No.1, separate notices calling for the meetin