High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat President. Petitioner failed to establish that the motion was not passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting as required under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Sumitra W/o Parappa Kulagod, was the President of Maigur Gram Panchayat. A no-confidence motion was moved against her by several elected members. The motion was passed in a meeting held on a certain date. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the motion, alleging that it was not passed by the required majority. The court examined the provisions of Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which requires that a no-confidence motion must be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. The court found that the motion was indeed passed by the requisite majority. The court also noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no ground for interference under Article 226.

Headnote

A) Local Self-Government - No-Confidence Motion - Gram Panchayat President - Section 49(2) Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The petitioner, President of Maigur Gram Panchayat, challenged the no-confidence motion passed against her. The court held that the motion was passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting, as required by law. The court declined to interfere under Article 226, finding no procedural irregularity. (Paras 1-10)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Procedural Matters - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that writ jurisdiction is not meant to interfere with every procedural irregularity in local body meetings unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was passed in accordance with Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The no-confidence motion against the petitioner is upheld.

Law Points

  • No-confidence motion
  • Gram Panchayat
  • Majority requirement
  • Section 49(2) Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act
  • 1993
  • Writ jurisdiction
  • Interference with procedural matters
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 41

WP No. 106230 of 2025 (LB-ELE)

2025-08-28

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

S.L. Matti

Smt. Sumitra W/o Parappa Kulagod

The State of Karnataka, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, The Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi Division, The Panchayat Development Officer, Maigur Grama Panchayita, Sri. Sachin S/o Tamanna Shinge, Sri. Sangappa S/o Channappa Pidashetty, Smt. Tayavva W/o Annasab Sangodi, Shri. Ramappa S/o Siddappa Ambi, Smt. Annapuranna W/o Mallappa B. Patil, Shri Hanumant S/o Sadashiv Gubbi, Smt. Geeta W/o Parasappa Ambi, Smt. Vimala W/o Allayya Mathapati, Sri. Basagonda S/o Mahadev Patil, Sri. Shivappa S/o Dhareyappa Nyamgouda, Sri. Hanamantha S/o Sadashiva Biradar, Smt. Shantavva W/o Mallappa Mantur, Smt. Shweta W/o Prakash Ainapur, Sri. Kallappa S/o Hanamappa Nyamgouda, Smt. Geeta W/o Basavaraj Mantur

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the passing of a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, who was the President of Maigur Gram Panchayat.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to quash the no-confidence motion and to be reinstated as President.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the no-confidence motion was not passed by the required majority under Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Issues

Whether the no-confidence motion was passed in accordance with Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the no-confidence motion was not passed by the required majority. The respondents argued that the motion was passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Ratio Decidendi

A no-confidence motion against a Gram Panchayat President is valid if passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting, as per Section 49(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The High Court will not interfere under Article 226 unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The motion was passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. There is no procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the no-confidence motion. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993: Section 49(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal of Dependants of Deceased Passenger in Railway Accident Case — Holds That Deceased Was a Bonafide Passenger and Death Was an Untoward Incident Under Railways Act, 1989. The court awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat President. Petitioner failed to establish that the motion was not passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting as required...