Karnataka High Court
Gram Panchayath vs State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
WP No. 35304 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.35304 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. GRAM PANCHAYATH
LOKAMMANAHALLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
RENUKAPPPA M.B.
S/O LATE BETTAPPA D.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT
N. MAVINAHALLI, NIRAGUNDA POST
Digitally
signed by H TURUVEKERE TALUK
K HEMA TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
WP No. 35304 of 2024
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND COMPETENT
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVAN, SPOORTHI LAYOUT
BADDIHALLI RING ROAD
TUMKURU - 572 104.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
NO.105, 1ST FLOOR
MINI VIDHANASOUDHA
TUMKUR - 572 101.
4. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
NO.105, 1ST FLOOR
MINI VIDHANASOUDHA
TUMKUR - 572 101.
5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TIPATURU SUB-DIVISION
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 572 101.
6. TAHSILDAR
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.
7. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
REP. BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
PLOT NO.97, ANTHARASANAHALLI
INDL. AREA, SIRA ROAD
LINGAPURA, TUMKUR - 572 106.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
WP No. 35304 of 2024
8. K. RAJU
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YERS
NO.125, G. KEBBAHALLI
GOWDAGERE POST
KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
9. M/S. MANJUNATHA STONE CRUSHER
SY. NO.65, KOLAGHATTA VILLAGE
ANEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 212
REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER K. RAJU
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NO.125, G. KEBBAHALLI
GOWDAGERE POST
KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH RULE
14(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES,
2018, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY
OTHER NATURE OF WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO STOP
THE BUILDING STONE MINING AND CRUSHER ACTIVITIES IN
THE VICINITY OF KOLAGHATTA VILLAGE AND LAND IN
SURVEY NOS.49/1, 49/2, 55 GOMALA LAND AND 65, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
WP No. 35304 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
The present petition is styled as public interest petition
wherein the prayer which came to be advanced was to direct the
authorities to stop the building stone mining and crusher activities
in the vicinity of Kolaghatta village and in the land bearing Survey
Nos.49/1, 49/2, 55 and 65. The order dated 02.01.2025 in this
regard was prayed to be set aside. The petitioner has described
itself as Gram Panchayat, Lokammanahalli, Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumakuru District and represented by its member Sri Renukapppa
M.B.
2. Since the petition was filed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat
and the petitioner projected himself to be the representative of the
Gram Panchayat, on the last occasion the court had asked learned
advocate for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has got any
authorization on behalf of the Gram Panchayat to institute the
public interest petition in the name of Gram Panchayat which is a
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
body constituted under the Constitution and the statute, learned
advocate for the petitioner was entirely at his receiving end to admit
that at least for the present, no such authorization was produced on
record.
3. In that circumstances, the court had an occasion to pass the
following order on 13.02.2025:
"The petition which is in the name and style of
public interest litigation is filed by the Gram
Panchayat through a member who projects himself to
be on behalf of the entire Gram Panchayat.
What figures on record is the Letter of
Authorization issued by the President, which may not
suffice in law when the petition is in the name of
Gram Panchayat. The petitioner may produce the
resolution of the Gram Panchayat authorizing him to
file the petition in the name of Gram Panchayat and
pursue the cause.
Unless the Court is satisfied about the above
aspect, no question arises to go into the merit part of
the petition.
Learned advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar for the
petitioner prays for time."
4. Today, when the petition came up for consideration, the court
asked learned advocate for the petitioner about the compliance of
the previous order. In response, it was pointed out that a memo
dated 14.02.2025 is filed furnishing a copy of the Resolution
passed by the Gram Panchayat. Along with the memo, figures the
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
copy of the resolution in vernacular language as well as the
translated copy. The Resolution is passed and is relatable to
general meeting of the Panchayat held on 14.02.2022 whereas, it
to be noticed, the petition is filed in the year 2024 on 13.12.2024.
The general meeting was held on 14.02.2022 at 11.00 a.m. in the
presence of the President Mrs. Nalina J.
5. Two aspects came to be readily admitted on behalf of the
petitioner, when queried. Firstly, the resolution is of the year 2022
when, as accepted by learned advocate for the petitioner, a
different body was functional in the Gram Panchayat. Admittedly,
as on today, there is a different body. The other aspect which is
coming out is that on a bare reading of the aforementioned
resolution dated 14.02.2022, it in no way refers to the authorization
given to the petitioner to institute any petition, much less the
present petition.
6. The above tale-telling facts show that the petitioner has not
only mislead the court on all fronts in filing the petition, in projecting
himself to be a public spirited person petitioner and in claiming
bona fides as per public interest petitioner. The petitioner has not
NC: 2025:KHC:8505-DB
only mislead the court, the entire way of filing and submitting the
petition amounts to playing a deceit with the court.
7. Noticing the sorry state of affairs and the total lack of
bona fides on part of the petitioner, this petition is dismissed with
cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner in favour of the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within three weeks.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
