ORDER : (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ Order or direction to Quash the Notice No. kr/sam/Chunavane/aa.aa.su/c.aar.174/2024-25 dated 30/12/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, the copy of which has been produced at ANNEXURE-M. b) Pass any other Writ, Order or direction as deems fit under the circumstances of the case and allow the Writ Petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Adhyaksha of Galagi Gram Panchayath elected from Ward No.3. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the notice dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, calling for a meeting on 18.01.2025 at 10.30 am, to consider the requisition submitted by respondents No.3 to 17, to move a resolution expressing no confidence with the petitioner’s performance as Adhyaksha. 3. The submission of Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 3.1. No reasons based on which the no-confidence motion is proposed to be moved, have been mentioned in the requisition dated 24.12.2024 at Annexure-L, as required under Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (‘the Act’, for short). 3.2. Secondly, a copy of the resolution in relation thereto has not been enclosed either along with the requisition or along with the impugned notice dated 30.12.2024. 3.3. In this regard, Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi relies upon a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Poornima Sudhin W/o. Sudhin Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others dated 15.12.2018 in W.P.No.50210/2018, more particularly paragraphs 15, 16 and 21 thereof, which are reproduced herein for easy reference: 15. In the present facts, the members moving the motion have not mentioned under which provision they are Issuing notice of motion of no-confidence. Accordingly, in such cases, it would fall to the Assistant Commissioner to make a very cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and determine as to whether the said motion of no-confidence is one under Section 49 (1) (without allegations) or 49 (2) [with allegations] of the Act and proceed. 16. Accordingly, in such cases, it would fall to the Assistant Commissioner to make a very cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and determine as to whether the said motion of no-confidence is one under Section 49 (1) (without allegations) or 49 (2) [with allegations] of the Act and proceed. 16. It is clear that if the legislature had intended that there were two categories of motion of no confidence, the Assistant Commissioner would only have to decide on the basis of a bare perusal of the complaint as to which category the motion of no confidence would belong to. If it were to be one under Section 49 (1) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner has to proceed with the same as per the Rules framed, and on the other hand, if it were to be a motion of no confidence that falls within Section 49 (2) of the Act, he will have no discretion to proceed with such resolution till Rules are framed providing for procedure to be adopted as regards such matters of motion of no confidence as observed by the Division Bench in Lakshmamma's case (supra). 21. The observation as regards the consequence on the motions of no-confidence as referred to in para 48 of the Division Bench judgment must be construed to be applicable as regards motion of no-confidence moved under Section 49 (2) of the Act which were pending consideration as on the date of passing of the order in the Division Bench and cannot be construed to be applicable as regards motion of no-confidence that were to be moved with allegations, i.e., those falling under Section 49 (2) of the Act, even after the judgment of the Division Bench. Hence, it is clear that it is not possible to treat a petition filed under Section 49 (2) after the disposal of W.A.No.844/2018 as one under Section 49 (1) of the Act. 3.4. By relying on the same, he submits that, whenever any requisition for a meeting to consider a resolution for no-confidence is made, the details and the basis on which no-confidence is sought for are required to be mentioned, the non-mentioning of it would result in invalidity of the said notices, thereby entitling this Court to take necessary action in relation thereto. 3.5. Thus, both the notice and the requisition are required to be quashed. 4. Sri. 3.5. Thus, both the notice and the requisition are required to be quashed. 4. Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA for the respondents, submits that; 4.1. Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Act, relied upon by the petitioner, has been omitted with effect from 31.03.2020, and therefore, the order dated 15.12.2018 in Poornima’s case (supra), which was passed on 15.12.2018 after the introduction of Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Act on 25.02.2016, before the same was omitted on 31.03.2020, would not be applicable to the present case. 4.2. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, at present, a requisition for a meeting has been submitted, acting upon which, the Assistant Commissioner has called for a meeting on 18.01.2025. It is for the Council to decide on that date as to what resolution has to be passed. 4.3. Therefore, the question of enclosing a resolution along with the requisition notice would not arise. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records. 6. The short but important question that would arise for consideration is; “Whether there is a requirement to mention the allegations in the requisition notice submitted by members of the council seeking for convening of a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion? 7. Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as on date is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. 7. Section 49 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as on date is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 49. Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of members of the Grama Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than [one-half] of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution: Provided further that no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved [within the first thirty months] from the date of his election: Provided also that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been considered and negatived by a Grama Panchayat a similar resolution in respect of the same Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha shall not be given notice of, or moved, [within two years] from the date of the decision of the Grama Panchayat. 8. Prior to 31.03.2020 there was Sub-section (2) to Section 49 of the Act which is available in the statute book, which reads as under: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no resolution expressing want of confidence against an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, shall be moved except on specific allegation of misuse or abuse of power or authority in executing any scheme, action plan or direction of Government or project of the panchayat or of misappropriating funds or other assets of the panchayat during the term of his membership or otherwise indulging in corruption or misconduct in the course of exercising his functions. 9. The said Sub-section (2) had been inserted by Amendment Act No.44 of 2015 with effect from 25.02.2016 and continued on statute book until 31.03.2020 and came to be omitted by Act No.49 of 2020. 9. The said Sub-section (2) had been inserted by Amendment Act No.44 of 2015 with effect from 25.02.2016 and continued on statute book until 31.03.2020 and came to be omitted by Act No.49 of 2020. It is taking into account both Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act this Court in the case of Smt.Poornima’s by referring to the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka and Others (WA.No.844/2018 and connected matters) held that when a motion for no confidence is moved, it would be the duty of the Assistant Commissioner to make a cursory enquiry into the contents of the notice of motion and to determine as to whether the said motion of no confidence is one under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act (without allegations) or under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act (with allegations) and in furtherance thereof held that the legislature had intended that there were two categories of motions of no confidence. 10. If such a motion was moved under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner had to proceed with the same as per the Rules framed. If the said motion was moved under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner would have to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made by cursory examination. 11. In the present case, as referred to supra Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted with effect from 31.03.2020. Thus as on date there is only one category of the motion of no confidence and as on date there are no two categories which were dealt with in Smt.Poornima’s case and in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case. 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act envisages a motion of no confidence being moved without making any allegations. If that be so, there would be no requirement of notice of motion to contain any allegations. 13. Smt.Poornima’s case and in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case categorically made out the distinction between no confidence motion of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act and that under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act. If that be so, there would be no requirement of notice of motion to contain any allegations. 13. Smt.Poornima’s case and in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case categorically made out the distinction between no confidence motion of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act and that under Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act. Now that Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted, the observations made in the above said Judgements in so far as Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act would only be applicable and the observations made in regard to a notice of motion and Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act would have to be eschewed since the said Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act has been omitted and no longer available in the statute book. 14. Even as held by the coordinate bench of this Court in Smt.Poornima’s case and the Hon’ble Division Bench in Smt.Lakshmamma’s case a notice of motion under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act is one without allegation and as such no allegations are required to be mentioned in the notice of motion. In that view of the matter, the submission made by learned counsel Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi that even a motion under Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act requires reasons and allegations is not sustainable. 15. As regards the second contention that a resolution has not been enclosed along with the notice of motion. The said submission would be putting the cart before the horse. The notice of motion has been moved to call for a meeting of the gram panchayath, where a resolution would be passed and not before. 16. Acting on the said notice of motion, the Assistant Commissioner has called for the meeting of the gram Panchayath on 18.01.2025 at 10:30 a.m. This notice of motion would be considered in the said meeting and resolution passed. Thus a resolution cannot accompany a notice of motion, but is a consequence of notice being moved and meeting held. In that view of the matter, the second contention of learned counsel Sri Venkatesh M. Kharvi also stands rejected. 17. No grounds being made out, petition stands dismissed.