IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.27352 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT.FARHANAAZ M W/O LATE MR HAAROON MIRZA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PRESIDENT OF KAREKATTE GRAMA PANCHAYTHI R/AT: KAREKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALULK DAVANAGERE 577544 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SATYANAND B S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Digitally DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT signed by SUMA AND PANCHAYATH RAJ Location: 3^RD FLOOR, M S BUILDING HIGH COURT OF 3^RD GATE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI KARNATAKA BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALI SUB DIVISION, HONNALI DAVANAGERE - 577217

3. KAREKALLU GRAMA PANCHAYATHI KAREKALLU VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNUR - 2 HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE - 577 544 BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2;

SRI.N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.CHUNAVANE CR/52/2025-26 DATED 25/08/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Notice bearing No.CHUNAVANE CR/52/2025-26 dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.2 to consider a 'No-Confidence Motion'

against her.

2. The petitioner is the President of Karekatte Grama Panchayat. The members of respondent No.3 submitted a representation before respondent No.2 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner and requested him to convene a meeting to consider a 'No-Confidence Motion' against the petitioner.

3. Respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 25.08.2025 proposing a meeting on 09.09.2025. The petitioner contends that notice of the 'No-Confidence Motion' was served on 03.09.2025 and therefore, there was no 15 days clear notice to the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the meeting held on 09.09.2025 and prays for quashing the impugned notice dated 25.08.2025 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A.

4. In terms of an order dated 09.09.2025, this Court has held that the result of the 'No-Confidence Motion' scheduled on 09.09.2025 would not be given effect to without the leave of the Court. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the order dated 09.09.2025, a 'No-Confidence Motion' was given effect to and the petitioner is removed from the post of the President of the Panchayat and the Vice President is now officiating in his post.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short, 'the Rules, 1994'), respondent No.2 ought to have served notice of 'No-Confidence Motion' by giving 15 days clear notice. He contends that the notice was served on 03.09.2025 and the meeting was scheduled on 09.09.2025 and therefore, it was in clear violation of Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1994. He further contends that though this Court had held that the proceedings of the meeting dated 09.09.2025 shall not be given effect to without the leave of the Court, the Vice President of the Panchayat has taken over as the President of the Panchayat. He, therefore, prays that the position of the petitioner as the President of the Panchayat be restored.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the notice of 'No-Confidence Motion' was served on the petitioner on 03.09.2025. He, however, submits that the notice is in compliance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules, 1994. He contends that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.31799/2024 c/w W.P.No.32470/2024 had held that the Rules, 1994 does not contemplate 15 days clear notice from the date on which the members are s