[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr P S Lokanath on 11 February, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO.18891 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)
AND:
1. MR. P.S. LOKANATH
S/O. LATE P.B. SRINIVASULU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
Digitally signed by
WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA
KADABAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 231.
RESIDING AT NO.77, I MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, JAGAJEEVANARAMANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 018.
2. MR. C.M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE MUGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CHIKKABANAWARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 090.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2023
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.48, N.K. FARM
NEAR R.V. ENGINEERING COLLEGE
DUBASI PALYA, AMMA BAKERY BUILDING
KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 059.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAK S. PANDIT, ADVOCATE, FOR
SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, FOR R-1, &
SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2022 IN APPLICATION
NOS.1624 AND 1625 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
WP No. 18891 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, Sri Vinayak S.
Pandit, learned counsel for Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel
respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, and
Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Lokayukta.
2. The State has challenged the order dated 14.10.2022
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020, wherein
the applications filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were allowed,
the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the petitioner-State was
set aside and the State Government was directed to pay all
consequential benefits including the monetary benefits to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 within the timeframe of three months.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Lokayukta would vehemently contend that the scope of the
Tribunal is very limited. The impugned order passed by the
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
HC-KAR
Tribunal is without properly appreciating the position of law and
erroneously allowed the applications filed by respondent Nos.1
and 2, which is required to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2 would submit that while passing
the order, the Tribunal has taken note of the charge levelled
against respondent Nos.1 and 2. He would submit that the
charge is only partly proved with regard to the preparation of
provisional list and the same is taken note by the Tribunal.
Further, there is no acceptance of provisional list and the
witnesses have admitted that the land of two acres, which is
earmarked for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is
still in the name of the Government, no allotment of the site is
made and no hakkupatra is issued to any of the beneficiaries.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Having heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the petitioner-State, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, the learned
counsel for respondent No.3-Lokayukta and considering the
material on record, the charge against respondent Nos.1 and 2
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
HC-KAR
is that they prepared the list for allotting the sites under the
Ashraya Scheme by receiving the amount and also made
ineligible candidates to get the benefits. The Tribunal, while
considering the material on record and particularly, taking note
of the enquiry report submitted by PW3, Executive Officer,
comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partly proved and nothing is placed
on record with regard to receiving the amount and making
ineligible candidates as beneficiaries. However, it is not in
dispute that the provisional list was prepared. In this regard,
PW3, Executive Officer, has stated that though the Panchayat
Development Officer of K. Gollahalli Grama Panchayat has sent
the list of the beneficiaries to his Office of the Taluk Panchayat,
but the same was returned back as it was not in accordance
with the guidelines. As per the guidelines, only women are the
beneficiaries, however, there were names of male beneficiaries.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the preparation
of beneficiaries list under Ashraya Scheme will be done in the
Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat and the Members of the
Grama Panchayat will make selection list of the beneficiaries.
He further admitted that for preparation of the beneficiaries list
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
HC-KAR
under the Ashraya Scheme, there is no power for the
Panchayat Secretary or the Panchayat Development Officer of
the said Panchayat.
6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the oral
evidence led by PW1 to PW3 itself goes to show that there is no
preparation of the final selection list in this case and provisional
list was prepared and it was prepared by the Members of the
Grama Panchayat in the Grama Sabha and the same was
forwarded to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, but
he has not finalised the same and returned it back. Witnesses
admitted that the said land of two acres, which is earmarked
for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is still in the
name of the Government and no allotment of the site was
made and no hakkupatra was issued to any of the beneficiaries.
Therefore, these aspects were not taken into consideration by
the Enquiry Officer in his report and only on the basis of
evidence of witnesses in the examination-in-chief, he has come
to the conclusion that the charges against respondent Nos.1
and 2 are partly proved. The Enquiry Officer specifically held in
his report regarding the allegations that respondent Nos.1
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
HC-KAR
and 2, by receiving the amount from some of the beneficiaries,
have prepared the list containing their names illegally as
beneficiaries is not proved. Therefore, under those
circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the application and set
aside the order.
7. When it is the clear admission of PW3, Executive
Officer, that the preparation of beneficiaries list under the
Ashraya Scheme is made by the Grama Sabha of the Grama
Panchayat, the Members of the Grama Panchayat will make the
selection list of the beneficiaries and thereafter, the said list will
be notified in the General Body Meeting and the same will be
finalised, the arguments of the learned High Court Government
Pleader for the petitioner-State that the Tribunal ought not to
have exercised the judicial review cannot be accepted. Hence,
no grounds are made out by the petitioner-State to set aside
the order of the Tribunal and the same is considered assessing
the material on record.
8. As per the guidelines, the names of only women
beneficiaries were supposed to be sent, however, the names of
male beneficiaries were sent and the same was returned. Even
NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB
HC-KAR
though the list will be prepared by the Grama Panchayat
members, it is the duty of the Panchayat Development Officer
to verify, however, the same is not done in this case. It is
dereliction of duty on the part of the Panchayat Development
Officer. Hence, the concerned Panchayat Development Officer is
warned not to indulge in any such act in future while
discharging his duties even while preparing the provisional list.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KVK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
