Karnataka High Court

Sri Mahabaleshwar Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025

Author: Suraj Govindaraj

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

                                                                -1-
                                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008
                                                                         WP No. 100316 of 2025




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                           DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                                              BEFORE
                                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 100316 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
                                    BETWEEN:

                                    1.   SRI MAHABALESHWAR PATIL
                                         S/O. PARASHARAM PATIL
                                         AGE. 46 YEARS,
                                         OCC. AGRICULTURE
                                         CHAIRMAN
                                         GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
                                         R/O. MERADA, POST: HALAGA,
                                         TALUK. KHANAPUR,
                                         DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                         PIN-591120.

                                    2.   PRAVEEN
                                         S/O YALLARI GAVADA
                                         AGE: 37 YEARS,
                                         OCC: AGRICULTURE
                                         MEMBER
                                         GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
                                         R/O. HATTARWAD, POST: HALAGA,
              Digitally signed by
                                         TALUK. KHANAPUR,
ASHPAK
              ASHPAK
              KASHIMSA
              MALAGALADINNI
              Location: High
                                         DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                         PIN-591120.
KASHIMSA      court of
MALAGALADINNI Karnataka,
              Dharwad Bench,
              Dharwad
              Date: 2025.02.04
              15:45:12 +0530




                                                                                    ...PETITIONERS
                                    (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, &
                                        SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI., ADVOCATES)

                                    AND:

                                    1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                                         PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
                                         M.S. BUILDING
                                         BENGALURU.
                                         PIN-560001
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008
                                     WP No. 100316 of 2025




2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BELAGAVI, SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI
     TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
     PIN-591302.

3.   THE GRAM PANCHAYAT,HALAGA
     TALUK: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI,
     REP BY ITS
     PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
     PIN-591120.

4.   RANAJIT,
     S/O KALLAPA PATIL,
     AGE: 46 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA,
     R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
     PIN-591120.

5.   SUNIL
     S/O MARUTI PATIL,
     AGE: 33 YEARS
     OCC: AGRICULTURE
     MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA,
     R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
     PIN-591120.

6.   SMT. MANDA
     W/O MAHADEV FATAN
     AGE: 46 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     UPA-ADYAKSHA GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
     R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
     PIN-591120.

7.   PANDURANG
     S/O KRISHNAJI PATIL
     AGE: 48 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE
     MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
     R/O MERDA, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI.
                              -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008
                                     WP No. 100316 of 2025




     PIN:591120.

8.   SMT. INDIRATAI
     W/O: MAHADEV MEDAR
     AGE: 50 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
     MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
     R/O : KARAJAGI, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI,
     PIN-591120.

9.   SMT. NAZIYA
     W/O: SAMEER AHMED SANADI
     AGE: 36 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
     MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
     R/O MERDA, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
     DIST: BELAGAVI,
     PIN-591120.

10. SMT. SWATI,
    W/O SADANAND PATIL
    AGED: 36 YEARS,
    OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
    MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA
    R/O: KIR HALASHI, TALUK: KHANAPUR,
    DIST: BELAGAVI.
    PIN-591120.


                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-2;
    SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R10)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED
IN 15/01/2025 IN ELECTION / GRA. PAM. /VIVA-01/2024-25 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.


      THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -4-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008
                                          WP No. 100316 of 2025




                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. A report has been filed by the learned AGA along

with a memo dated 30.01.2025. The same is taken

on record.

2. In view of the new facts being brought to the notice

of this court as regards the requisition notice under

Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the

Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence

against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha

of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules of

1994' for brevity), the order dated 20.01.2025 is

recalled and the matter is taken up for fresh hearing

and the following order passed.

3. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated in 15.01.2025 in Election/Gra.Pam./Viva-01/2024-25 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-H.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

ii. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner continue to function as Adyakhsha of the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat till his term expires.

iii. To issue any other order, direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third

respondent-Panchayat Development Officer [PDO],

is playing mischief and that once earlier, a

requisition notice was submitted through the PDO

and now, once again, a requisition notice bearing the

seal, signature and writing of the PDO has been

submitted to the Assistant Commissioner.

5. When a copy of the certified requisition notice was

furnished to the petitioners, it did not bear any seal

and signature of the PDO. Only the first sheet of the

said requisition notice had been furnished to the

petitioner. Subsequently, when the petitioner

sought for certified copies of the said requisition

notice, the petitioner was furnished with the

requisition notice of both the front and the backside

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

of the said notice, the backside of the notice

indicated the endorsement of the PDO at the bottom

of the said page. It is on that basis contended that

the petitioners on the first occasion had been

deliberately misled by furnishing only the facing

page of the requisition notice without furnishing the

back page of the requisition notice, which came to

their knowledge only after having applied for a

certified copy thereof.

6. The original records having also been produced by

learned AGA and inspected by this court, it was seen

that the endorsement of the PDO is not at the

bottom of the page, but on the top of the page and

at the bottom page there is an endorsement made

by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, even the

certified copy which had been issued to the

petitioners is not proper and correct and the same

continues to be a truncated document indicating as

if the endorsement of the PDO is at the bottom of

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

the page when it was in fact at the top of the page

and the endorsement and writing of the Assistant

Commissioner has not been provided in the certified

copy. As such, the Deputy Commissioner was called

upon to cause an enquiry and submit his report. The

said report has been filed today.

7. Shockingly, the Deputy Commissioner has absolved

every one of their respective responsibilities by

stating that the certified copy has been issued by

inadvertence. I am unable to accept the said report

of the Deputy Commissioner. The manner in which

the certified copy has been furnished, as indicated

above, can only lead to one single conclusion that

the same is deliberate inasmuch as, as referred to

supra, the endorsement is shown to be at the

bottom of the page without the endorsement of the

Assistant Commissioner. How the endorsement

came to be shifted to the bottom of the page and

how the endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

has been eschewed is not forthcoming in any of the

statements. It was for the Deputy Commissioner to

have caused a proper enquiry into this and submit a

report. Such a report is not expected to be furnished

by the Deputy Commissioner in whom this Court

relied upon to conduct a proper enquiry and submit

a report.

8. In that view of the matter, the report which has been

submitted by the Deputy Commissioner is rejected.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and

Panchayat Raj and the Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department are directed to conduct a joint enquiry

in a proper manner and take action against the

concerned for having misled this Court, as also

misled the parties before this Court. This Court

hopes and believes that the Principal Secretaries

would discharge their duties in a proper manner.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

9. Coming back to the merits of the matter, the petition

was earlier dismissed on account of a false copy

being furnished by the Assistant Commissioner's

office and it is in that view that the said order came

to be recalled.

10. The certified copy which has been produced

subsequently by the petitioners, as also verification

of the original records indicates that the requisition

notice bears a seal, signature and writing of the PDO

on a requisition notice issued under Sub-Rule (1) of

Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 as held by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

SANGAN GOWDA N BIRADAAR AND ANOTHER -

v- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PANCHAYATH

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1], the PDO did not

have any business to affix any seal, signature or

writing on the requisition notice. This Court, while

dealing with the same, in the case of SMT.GEETHA-

W.P. No.203171/2024 dated 26.11.2024

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

v- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER2 has issued

certain directions which are also required to be

complied with. In that view of the matter, the

present requisition notice being contrary to the

judgment passed in Sangana Gowda Biradaar's

case, I am of the considered opinion that there is

deliberate default committed by the PDO as regards

whom necessary action would have to be initiated.

This deliberate action is also compounded by the

deliberate issuance of truncated certified copies

which have also been made to deliberately mislead

this Court. This fact would also have to be taken

into account when proceedings against the PDO are

initiated.

11. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is

issued.

W.P. No.100205/2025 dated 20.01.2025

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

ii. The impugned notice dated 15.01.2025 in

ELECTION/GRA.PAM./VIVA-01/2024-25 issued

by respondent No.2 at Annexure-H is hereby

quashed.

iii. Liberty is reserved to Respondents No.4 to 10

to initiate fresh proceedings under Sub-Rule

(1) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj

(Motion of No-Confidence against the Adyaksha

and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules,

1994. They would be well advised not to

submit any requisition to the PDO but directly

to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant

Commissioner would be well advised not to

receive any requisition notice with any seal,

signature or endorsement by the PDO.

iv. In the event of the Assistant Commissioner

seeking for verification of the identity and or

the signature of the requisition notice, the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008

Assistant Commissioner would be required to

obtain such verification by following due

process and procedure as prescribed under the

Rules.

v. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and

Panchayat Department and the Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department are directed to