Karnataka High Court
Shri.Pradeep S/O. Randi Mane vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2021
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
W.P. No. 104325/2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. PRADEEP S/O RANOJI MANE,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: ISLAMPUR, TQ: VALAVA, DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASTRA STATE (BENEFIT OF SENIOR
CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED)
2. SHRI. DEELIP S/O RANOJI MANE,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: ISLAMPUR, TQ: VALAVA, DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASTRA STATE (BENEFIT OF SENIOR
CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED)
3. SHRI. RAGHUNATH S/O RANOJI MANE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ISLAMPUR, TQ: VALAVA, DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASTRA STATE.
4. SHRI. SHRIDHAR S/O RANOJI MANE,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: ISLAMPUR, TQ: VALAVA, DIST: SANGLI,
MAHARASTRA STATE (BENEFIT OF SENIOR
CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED)
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
CHIKKODI, REPRESENTED BY
ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AT CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
3. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, MANAKAPUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AT: MANAKAPUR,
TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
4. SMT. GANGUBAI,
W/O SHREEKANTH MANE @ KORAVI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANAKAPUR, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590 001.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3,
SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is directed against the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 07.11.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat was allowed by respondent No.2-Taluk Panchayat/ appellate authority.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3-panchayat as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
3. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, it is the specific assertion on the part of the petitioners that as can be seen from Annexure-F dated 24.10.2019 issued by respondent No.2, petitioners herein were directed to appear before it on 07.11.2019. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the said notice at Annexure-F dated 24.10.2019 directing the 4 petitioners to appear on 07.12.2019 was not served upon petitioners and consequently since they were not aware nor had knowledge about the date of hearing being fixed on 07.11.2019, they were not in a position to appear before the respondent No.2-appellate authority on that day resulting in the impugned order being passed by the respondent No.2 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 against the petitioners herein.
4. It is submitted that impugned order discloses that the same a cryptic, unreasoned and non speaking order by which the respondent No.2-appellate authority has allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the petitioners have neither appeared nor contested the matter and consequently impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 submit that records of the respondents No.2 and 5 3 will indicate that even prior to issuance of said notice dated 24.10.2019 at Annexure-F, the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No.2 and engaged the services of counsel and as such it cannot be said that no opportunity was granted in favour of the petitioners to appear and contest the appeal filed by the respondent No.4. It is therefore contended that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Though an attempt has been made to point out from the records produced on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 that the petitioners had contested the appeal proceedings even prior to issuance of notice dated 24.10.2019 directing the petitioners to appear on 07.11.2019, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that no opportunity was granted in favour of the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits and having fixed date of hearing on 07.11.2019, the respondent No.2-appellate authority has proceeded to pass impugned order on the very same day without granting 6 sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Further, a perusal of the impugned order will also indicate that the same is a cryptic, unreasoned, laconic and non speaking order without application of mind in as much as except for stating that the petitioners had remained exparte and had not contested the appeal despite notice at Annexure-F having been served upon them, the impugned order does not disclose valid or cogent reasons and has merely accepted the contention of respondent No.4 without granting sufficient opportunity in favour of the petitioners.
7. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/ demerits of the rival contentions and leaving open all contentions to be adjudicated by the respondent No.2-appellate authority, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent No.2-appellate authority to reconsider the appeal afresh in accordance with law and 7 pass a speaking order after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides within a stipulated time frame.
i) In the result, writ petition is hereby allowed;
ii) Impugned order at Annexure-A dated 07.11.2019 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2-appellate authority to reconsider the appeal afresh after giving opportunity to both the petitioners as well as the respondents and to proceed to pass a speaking order in accordance with law;
iii) Petitioners and respondent No.4 undertake to appear before the respondent No.2-appellate authority on 07.09.2021 without further notice from the respondent No.2-appellate authority;
iv) The respondent No.2-appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from 07.09.2021 keeping in mind the observations made in this order;8
v) Petitioners and respondent No.4 are directed to co-operate with the respondent No.2-appellate authority for disposal of the appeal.
SD JUDGE bvv