Karnataka HC permits issuance of fresh notice for no-confidence meeting after stay is vacated

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court ruled that a fresh notice for a no-confidence meeting can be issued by the Assistant Commissioner if the initially scheduled meeting is not held due to interim court orders.

This decision came while dismissing a petition filed by Gangavva, President of Jakkali Village Panchayat in Ron Taluk of Gadag District.Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that if a meeting set to consider a no-confidence motion is delayed by a court's stay order, a new notice can be issued once the stay is lifted and any challenges to it are dismissed. Specifically, after the stay was vacated, the Assistant Commissioner was authorized to hold the meeting within 30 days of issuing a notice with a 15-day clear period.On November 6-2024, the Assistant Commissioner notified Gangavva that a meeting would take place on November 29-2024 to address the no-confidence motion against her. However, the meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum. Subsequently, on June 6-2025, another notice was issued for a meeting on July 2-2025 based on a new requisition submitted on the same day. This notice was challenged in the High Court, which stayed the meeting on July 1-2025.

The High Court disposed of Gangavva's petition on July 9-2025, stating that the stay had been vacated. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner issued a fresh notice on July 14-2025, setting the meeting for July 30-2025 and enclosing the original requisition from June 6-2025. Gangavva contested this, arguing that the original requisition had lapsed and a new requisition was necessary as per Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994.Village panchayat members contended that the stay order prevented the July 2-2025 meeting, allowing the issuance of a new notice as the original requisition remained valid. Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the interim order was passed on July 2-2025 and the petition was disposed of within seven days, thereby vacating the stay. He emphasized that the 30-day period under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is intended to ensure timely action on no-confidence motions, allowing only the requisitioners to raise grievances if the motion is not addressed within the stipulated timeframe.