Karnataka High Court
Amaramma vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 February, 2024
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1254-DB
WA No. 200026 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.200026 OF 2024 (LB-ELE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. AMARAMMA W/O AYYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: MEMBER OF
ICHANAL GRAM PANCHAYAT,
R/O ICHANAL-2 VILLAGE - 584 122,
TQ. LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TENIHALLI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
COURT OF & PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KARNATAKA, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR,
NO.16, BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR, AT RAICHUR - 584 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1254-DB
WA No. 200026 of 2024
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR,
AT RAICHUR - 584 101.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT, LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 122.
6. PRESCRIBED OFFICER FOR ELECTION OF
ADHYAKSHYA & UPADHYAKSHYA,
ICHANAL GRAM PANCHAYATH,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 122.
7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ICHANAL- 2 GRAM PANCHAYAT
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 122.
8. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O UMESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE-HOLD &
MEMBER GRAMPANCHYATH,
R/O KESARATTI TANKA-I,
TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO,
I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P. NO.202195/2023 DATED 09.01.2024.
II) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF
ICHANAL-2 GRAM PANCHAYAT RESERVING THE GENERAL
CATEGORY FOR THE POST OF ADYAKSHA, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ANNEXURE-A1 FOUND AT
I/A/3/2023 IN WP NO. 202195/23 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1254-DB
WA No. 200026 of 2024
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant [the petitioner in W.P.No.202195/2023]
has impugned the notice dated 24.07.2023 seeking for
direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur. The writ
Court has disposed of the writ petition by its order dated
09.01.2024, which is impugned in this writ appeal. The writ
Court's reasoning reads as under:
"Perused the intimation letter. In the said letter, it has
been informed to the petitioner that if she has any
grievance against the roster, she is at liberty to
approach the Election Commission. I find no infirmity in
the Intimation letter dated 19.07.2023. As already
noted above, the petitioner had already questioned the
Notification reserving the post of Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha of the Gram panchayat of Raichur
District, and having not pressed the prayer of quashing
the same, she is estopped from questioning the same
Notification in the present Writ Petition by way of
amendment. Furthermore, in the present Writ Petition,
the petitioner has sought to quash the notice issued by
respondent No.6 calling upon her to participate in the
election. The authority concerned intimated the
petitioner to participate in the election. In my view, the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1254-DB
petitioner cannot have a grievance about the same. I
find no infirmity in the notice issued by respondent
No.6."
2. Sri. V.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that the appellant's grievance is on two counts viz.,
the writ Court's observation that the appellant, because she
has given up certain claim in the earlier rounds of writ
petition in W.P.No.201883/2023, cannot question the
reservation of the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the
Gram Panchayat of Raichur District and with the writ Court's
observation that no infirmity can be found with the third
respondent informing the appellant that she must approach
the Election Commission.
3. However, Sri. V.K.Nayak is not able to persuade
this Court to opine that the writ Court has erred in observing
that the appellant is rightly informed that she must approach
the Election Commission insofar as the grievance against
reservation, as it is settled that the writ Courts would be
reluctant to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India when an alternative remedy is available,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1254-DB
and insofar as the grievance that the appellant's right to
approach Election Commission is foreclosed with the writ
Court concluding that the appellant is estopped from calling
in question reservation because of the conclusion of the
earlier proceedings, it would suffice for this Court to observe
that if indeed the appellant could avail such remedy, the
observation as aforesaid cannot impede.
4. With the liberty to the appellant as aforesaid, but
subject to all just exceptions in law, the writ appeal stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DS
