High Court of Karnataka Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Gram Panchayat President Despite Pending Disqualification Proceedings. No Statutory Bar Exists Under Section 3(3) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 for Moving No-Confidence Motion During Pendency of Disqualification Proceedings.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 16:15:03

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, P. Reethi Mune Gowda, was the President of Bagaluru Grama Panchayat. A no-confidence motion was moved against her by several members of the Panchayat. The motion was passed by a majority of the members. The appellant challenged the motion before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, primarily on the ground that proceedings for her disqualification under Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 were pending before the Assistant Commissioner, and therefore, the no-confidence motion could not be validly moved. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no statutory bar against the no-confidence motion during the pendency of disqualification proceedings. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The court observed that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder do not contain any provision that prohibits the moving of a no-confidence motion against the President when disqualification proceedings are pending. The two proceedings are independent and operate in different spheres. The no-confidence motion was validly passed by the requisite majority. The court found no error in the learned Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.

Headnote

A) Panchayat Raj - No-confidence Motion - Validity - Section 3(3) Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Rule 3(2) Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 - The court held that there is no statutory bar under the Act or Rules preventing the moving of a no-confidence motion against the President merely because disqualification proceedings under Section 3(3) are pending. The motion was validly passed by a majority of members. (Paras 1-10)

B) Panchayat Raj - Disqualification Proceedings - Pending Proceedings - Effect on No-confidence Motion - Section 3(3) Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The court reasoned that the pendency of disqualification proceedings does not create a legal impediment to the no-confidence motion. The two proceedings operate in different spheres and are independent. (Paras 5-8)

C) Writ Appeal - Interference with Discretionary Order - Scope - The court declined to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition, as the Single Judge had correctly appreciated the legal position and no error of law or jurisdiction was shown. (Paras 9-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether a no-confidence motion against the President of a Gram Panchayat is valid when proceedings for disqualification of the President under Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 are pending before the Assistant Commissioner.

Final Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. The no-confidence motion against the appellant was held to be valid.

Law Points

No-confidence motion
Gram Panchayat
President
Section 3(3) Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act
1993
Rule 3(2) Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules
1994
disqualification
pending proceedings
statutory bar
writ appeal
interference with discretionary order

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (06) 29

Writ Appeal No.1508 of 2023 (LB-RES)

2024-06-13

N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit, J.

Sri K.N.Phanindra, Senior Advocate a/w Sri B. Ramesh, Advocate for appellant; Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AAG a/w Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA, Sri B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for R3, Sri D.R. Ravishnakar, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Saravana S., Advocate for R4 & 6 to 23 and Sri Murali N, Advocate for R5

P. Reethi Mune Gowda

State of Karnataka, Assistant Commissioner, Bagaluru Grama Panchayat, A. Kempegowda, Praveen Taj, B.N. Nagaveni, B.S. Prabhuswamy, Dhananjay B, Hemalatha, Anjanamma, Rafia Sulthan, M.D. Usman Ghanni, B.C. Nagaraj, Padmavathi, Syed Shabbir, B.G. Nataraj, Hameeda, Farzana, Kuteja, Muni Vajaramma, Veena M, Lakshmamma, Sudheendra

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging no-confidence motion against President of Gram Panchayat.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition to declare the no-confidence motion invalid.

Filing Reason

Appellant challenged the no-confidence motion on the ground that disqualification proceedings under Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 were pending against her.

Previous Decisions

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no statutory bar against the no-confidence motion during pendency of disqualification proceedings.

Issues

Whether a no-confidence motion against the President of a Gram Panchayat is valid when disqualification proceedings under Section 3(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 are pending. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the no-confidence motion could not be moved during the pendency of disqualification proceedings as it would be premature and contrary to law. Respondents argued that there is no statutory bar under the Act or Rules preventing the no-confidence motion, and the motion was validly passed by a majority.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory bar under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 or the Rules framed thereunder that prevents the moving of a no-confidence motion against the President of a Gram Panchayat merely because disqualification proceedings under Section 3(3) are pending. The two proceedings are independent and operate in different spheres.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that there is no statutory bar under the Act or Rules preventing the moving of a no-confidence motion against the President merely because disqualification proceedings under Section 3(3) are pending. The two proceedings operate in different spheres and are independent.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the no-confidence motion. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

Acts & Sections

Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993: Section 3(3)
Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994: Rule 3(2)
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4