IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28582 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. ANUSUYA BAI W/O VITTAL RAO JAGATAP, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, PRESIDENT, MULLURU GRAM PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI VTC MULLURU, PO MULLURU, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT -571610

2. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS MEMBER, MULLURU GRAM PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK -571610 Digitally …PETITIONERS signed by SUMA (BY SRI. PATIL SUMANTH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION HUNSUR -571105

3. MULLURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH MULLURU VILLAGE, GAVADAGERE HOBLI VTC MULLURU, PO MULLURU, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571121 REPTD. BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO)

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04.09.2025, ISSUED ON 06.09.2025 TO THE 1^ST PETITIONER, BEARING NO:E.L.N.(GRAM.PAN)54/2025, ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE E IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS CONCERN 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 petitioners have challenged a notice dated

04.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 convening a meeting of the Panchyat on 20.09.2025 to consider the motion of no-confidence.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the President of the respondent No.3. The petitioner No.2 is a member of the respondent No.3. The other members of the Panchayat, submitted a notice expressing lack of confidence in petitioner No.1 and requested the respondent No.2 to convene a meeting to consider 'motion of no-confidence'. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 04.09.2025 proposing to hold a meeting of the members on 20.09.2025. The petitioners contend that the notice of the meeting was served upon them on 06.09.2025 and that fifteen days clear notice as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence Against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 1994) was not issued. They therefore submitted that the notice issued is in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1994 it is incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to ensure that the notice of motion of no confidence is served not only on the petitioners but on all the members of Panchayat. He contends that notice to petitioner No.1 was issued on 06.09.2025 as is evident from the postal receipt affixed on the cover containing notice. He therefore submits that there was no clear fifteen days notice as prescribed under Rule 3(1) of Rules, 1994, and consequently, the impugned notice being defective is liable to be set aside. He further contends that petitioner No.2 was also served with the notice on 06.09.2025 and, therefore, she too did not have the benefit of a clear fifteen days’ notice.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has placed on record the file maintained by respondent No.2, which discloses that the notice to petitioner No.1 was served by affixture on 04.09.2025, as the petitioner No.1 was not available. As regards petitioner No.2, it is contended that she received the notice on 04.09.2025 and has acknowledged receipt thereof. It is therefore submitted that the procedure followed by respondent No.2 was strictly in accordance with the Rules,