IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 37319 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PAVITHRA RAVIKUMAR

WIFE OF RAVIKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH

RESIDING AT

KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,

K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST,

BANGALORE -562 067

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND

RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

Digitally

signed by DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

SUMA

Location: BENGALURU -560001

High Court

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

of Karnataka

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD,

BENGALURU -560009

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION

KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD,

BENGALURU - 560009

4. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-560 067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR NO- CONFIDENCE MOTION IN KANNAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KR PURAM, VIDE NO.CR 45/25-26 DATED 01.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 01.12.2025, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, IN NO.CR 45/25-26, DATED 01.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-F), WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HAS CALLED FOR A MEETING TO BE HELD ON 16.12.2025, ON A NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION THAT IS MOVED AGAINST THE PETITIONER, WHICH RUNS CONTRARY TO SECTION 49 OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT, 1993.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 01.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 convening a meeting of the members of respondent No.4 on 16.12.2025 to consider a motion of no confidence.

2. The petitioner was elected as a member of respondent No.4 on 30.12.2020 was thereafter elected as its President on 09.08.2023. The petitioner claims that her term would come to an end on 30.12.2025. She claims that she has served respondent No.4 to the best of her ability without any blemish. She further claims that certain disputes arose between herself and the members of respondent No.4 and that 11 members of respondent No.4 submitted a representation to respondent No.3 on 19.11.2025 expressing lack of confidence in the petitioner.

3. The petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.3 disputing the signatures of the members who had submitted their representation dated 19.11.2025. The respondent No.3 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to verify the signatures of the members who filed the representation dated 19.11.2025. The respondent No.4 replied to respondent No.3 on 20.11.2025 enclosing a copy of the meeting dated 09.08.2023 and the attendance register of the members who attended the said meeting. Based on the above, respondent No.3 being satisfied about the genuineness of the signatures of the members on the representation, issued a notice dated 01.12.2025 convening a meeting of the members on 16.12.2025 to consider the motion of no confidence.

4. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's term will come to an end on 30.12.2025 and at the fag end of her tenure, the members of respondent No.4 have moved a motion of no confidence. He submits that the petitioner has served respondent No.4 sincerily and has a blemish free record, and that if she is ousted from the office of the President at this stage, it would affect her future prospects. He therefore submits that the impugned notice being issued at the instance of certain inimically ill-disposed members, is liable to be set at nought.

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respond