Karnataka High Court
Ummavva vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
WP No. 200378 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 200378 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
UMMAVVA
W/O GYANAPPA RATHOD,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT,
TALEKHAN, R/O: HADAGALI TANDA,
TALUK: MASKI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 126.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (PR),
RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ
Digitally signed
by RAMESH DEPARTMENT,
MATHAPATI M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE SECTION OFFICER/PITADHIKARI,
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ COMMISSIONERATE
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI, SUB-DIVISION,
KALABURAGI - 585 101.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
5. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR - 584 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
WP No. 200378 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT, MASKI,
TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 126.
7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
MGNREGA, TALUK PANCHAYAT, MASKI,
TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 126.
8. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
GRAM PANCHAYAT TALEKHAN,
TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 126.
AMENDED CAUSE
9. SRI MOUNESH TITLE AS PER
S/O SHETAPPA ORDER DATED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS , 18.03.2025
OCC: MEMBER, TELEKHAN
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
R/O: HADAGALI TANDA,
TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR - 585 126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.MALHAR RAO, A.A.G., AND
SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI GOURISH S. KASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8;
SRI GANESH S. KALABURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
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 ENQUIRY
REPORT DATED 02.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BEARING
¸ÀASÉå/PÀA/¥ÁæDPÀ/f.¥ÀA/101/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
AND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M BEARING ¸ÀASÉå:UÁæC¥À 60 f¦J
2025, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
WP No. 200378 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging enquiry report dated 02.01.2025 at
Annexure-K submitted by respondent no.3 and show cause
notice dated 21.01.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at
Annexure-M, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel submitted that
petitioner was elected as Member of Hadagali Tanda-2 on
30.12.2020. It was submitted, on 03.01.2024, petitioner was
elected as President of Gram Panchayat. It was submitted same
was after passing no-confidence motion against respondent
no.9-earlier Adhyaksha. It was submitted, on 29.08.2024,
respondent no.4 orally directed respondent no.5 for conducting
audit of accounts of all projects of Talekhan Gram Panchayat
from year 2022-2023 to date. But, respondent no.5 restricted
such enquiry only for period during which petitioner was
President of Gram Panchayat. It was submitted that same
would indicate that audit and enquiry was targeted against
petitioner. Thereafter, respondent no.3-Regional Commissioner
issued show cause notice to petitioner as per Annexure-E dated
29.10.2024 for enquiry for disqualification under Sections 43-A
and 48(4) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
1993 (for short, 'Panchayat Raj Act'). Petitioner appeared and
filed reply as per Annexure-F. It was further submitted, in such
enquiry, respondent no.8-Panchayat Development Officer
(PDO) filed parawise remarks along with records and sought
dropping of proceedings. Ignoring said material including
measurement books produced by PDO as well as petitioner,
respondent no.3-Regional Commissioner observed said material
was not produced and submitted enquiry report as per
Annexure-K concluding that petitioner had committed
misconducts. Apparently, in pursuance of enquiry report at
Annexure-K, respondent no.2 issued show cause notice as per
Annexure-M. It was submitted disqualification under Sections
43-A and 48(4) of Panchayat Raj Act would impose serious civil
consequences. Though provision contemplated enquiry by
Government or authorized officer, it was apparent from
Annexure-M that Government was seeking to rely on and
proceed with enquiry report submitted by respondent no.3
which would be contrary to interpretation of provisions by
Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt.Bhavani and
another v. The State of Karnataka and others in
W.P.no.103762/2017 and connected matters disposed of on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
08.12.2020 and in case of Smt.Savithramma and others v.
The Panchayat Development Officer and others in
W.P.no.3150/2020 disposed of on 09.12.2020. Therefore, on
ground that initiation of enquiry only against petitioner was
discriminatory and malafide as well as reliance upon enquiry
report at Annexure-K would not be justified, petitioner had filed
this writ petition.
3. Sri K.Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3
sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, writ petition filed
against a show cause notice was premature. It was submitted
that there was no basis for alleging malafide against enquiry as
it was in pursuance of audit report noting financial misfeasance.
It was submitted that though petitioner was apprehensive
about respondent no.2 not conducting any enquiry, very notice
at Annexure-M was about enquiry. It was submitted that
enquiry would be conducted following directions issued by
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no.103762/2017 and
connected matters after providing petitioner with sufficient
opportunity and thereafter appropriate orders passed. It was
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
submitted there was no merit in writ petition and sought
dismissal.
4. Sri Ganesh Kalburgi, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.9 sought to adopt submission of learned Addl.
Advocate General and reinforce it with decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Union Of India And Another vs
Kunisetty Satyanarayana1 and Co-ordinate Bench judgment
of this Court in W.P.no.203249/2022 disposed of on
09.01.2023.
5. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner sought to
contend that enquiry as contemplated in judgment by Division
Bench of this Court included furnishing material sought to be
relied upon by respondent no.2, petitioner apprehended that
she would not be supplied with material.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
papers.
7. Writ petition is filed challenging enquiry report at
Annexure-K submitted by respondent no.3-Regional
AIR 2007 SC 906
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
Commissioner and show cause notice issued by respondent
no.2. Referring to enquiry report, Annexure-E, show cause
notice issued by respondent no.3 was in proceedings for
disqualification under Section 43-A and 48 (4) of Karnataka
Panchayatraj Act. Said provision would empower only
Government or its authority to hold enquiry and pass orders for
disqualification. Though report is submitted and findings
recorded by enquiry authority about financial misfeasance by
petitioner, Annexure-K is only an 'enquiry report' and not an
executive order. Enquiry report by itself therefore cannot give
rise to cause of action for filing this writ petition. If respondents
intend to initiate proceedings for disqualification of Adhyaksha
of Gram Panchayat, same could only by recourse to Section 43-
A and 48(4) of Panchayat Raj Act. Annexure-M issued by
respondent no.2 appears to be expression of such initiation.
Therefore directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.no.103762/2017 and connected matters that enquiry
contemplated was as follows would be attracted:
"14. It can be gainfully stated that the word
'enquiry' as occurring in the Section clearly implies an
investigation by the Government and a concomitant to
such an enquiry is furnishing of material relied upon by
the Government and an opportunity to rebut or test
the veracity of the material put against or the persons
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
acted against, and thereafter, the provision visualizes
an opportunity of being heard which necessarily
implies an opportunity of hearing to the parties to
present their summation on the merits of the material
relied upon and merits of the case. Further, the powers
vested in the Government can be invoked only on the
proof of certain charges as enumerated under clauses
(i) to (v) of sub Section (1) of Section 43-A of the
Panchayathraj Act."
8. It is seen that Division Bench in said matter was
examining validity of an order passed after enquiry, whereas
present case is at stage of notice. As rightly submitted by
learned Addl. Advocate General challenge against action
initiated would be premature.
9. Even Petitioner's challenge on ground of malafide or
discrimination would require rejection for said reason that
restriction of audit under Annexure-C1, when petitioner was
president of Gram Panchayat would not absolve earlier
Adhyaksha of any financial misfeasance committed during his
tenure nor would petitioner be barred against producing
material against him, but same cannot be used by petitioner to
escape enquiry insofar as financial irregularities or misfeasance
alleged to be committed by petitioner during his tenure.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048
HC-KAR
In view of above, writ petition challenging Annexure-M is
dismissed as premature and against Annexure-K as not
tenable. However, respondents shall conduct enquiry against
petitioner in compliance with paragraph 14 of W.P.
no.103762/2017 and connected matters extracted above.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB,MSR
Ct;Vk
