Karnataka High Court
Ananthanarayana K.S vs The Panchayath Development Officer on 13 June, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20230
WP No. 11996 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11996 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANANTHANARAYANA K.S.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. SHANKAR K.,
MEMBER OF WARD NO.1,
KUDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
RESIDING AT NO.102,
BRAHMINS STREET,
KUDUR, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH 1. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KUDUR GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KUDUR POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
2. THE SECRETARY,
KUDUR GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KUDUR POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20230
WP No. 11996 of 2023
3. THE PRESIDENT,
KUDUR GRAM PANCHAYATH,
KUDUR POST, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATH,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT IN NO. THA PUM MA GRA PUM/MEY PRA NO.
2023-24 AT ANNEXURE-H1; ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
THE R-4 TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY AGAINST THE R-1 AND 2 BY
TREATING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.03.2023 AND
15.03.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND E HOLDING
THATH THE ALLEGED GENERAL BODY MEETING DATED
21.03.2023 SAID TO HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE R-2 PANCHAYAT
IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Matter is coming up for a preliminary hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims to be a elected member of respondent-Gram Panchayath and is aggrieved by a meeting notice which was issued to the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:20230 WP No. 11996 of 2023 petitioner through whatsapp convening the meeting on 17.03.2023 at 11.00 a.m. It appears that the petitioner raised an objection that the meeting notice was not issued in accordance with law by a competent authority. It appears that the petitioner gave a representation to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath dated 13.03.2023 calling for explanation as to how such a meeting was convened contrary to the provisions contained in Section 52(3) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as ' the Act ' for short).
2. Again the petitioner gave a representation dated 15.03.2023 to the Panchayath Development Officer of the Gram Panchayath while marking a copy to the Adyaksha of the Grama Panchayath, Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, Magadi and Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath, Ramanagara, calling for an explanation as to how the meeting convened on 17.03.2023 was postponed, and a meeting was held on 21.03.2023 without following due process of law. Thereafter, the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath made a communication to the Panchayath -4- NC: 2023:KHC:20230 WP No. 11996 of 2023 Development Officer of the Gram Panchayath, calling upon him to furnish information regarding the meeting convened on 17.03.2023 and held on 21.03.2023 and to take action on the representation given by the petitioner. Nevertheless, when no action was taken, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 269 of the Act, before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath, praying that the entire records regarding the general body meeting held on 21.03.2023 may be called for; to set aside the meeting notices dated 12.03.2023 and 15.03.2023; to set aside the entire resolution passed by the Gram Panchayath on 21.03.2023 and to initiate an enquiry against the Panchayath Development Officer and the Secretary of the respondent Gram Panchayath for violation of provisions contained in Section 52 (3) of the Act.
3. The Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath issued the impugned endorsement dated 25.04.2023 stating that an appeal under Section 269 could be filed only against a original order or resolution passed by the Grama Panchayath. No such order or resolution was produced by the petitioner while filing the appeal. Therefore, only on the said ground that no such original order or resolution of the Grama Panchayat -5- NC: 2023:KHC:20230 WP No. 11996 of 2023 was produced by the petitioner or challenged, the appeal was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the appeal, the petitioner had also sought for production of the entire records of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat held on 21.03.2023 and to set aside the resolution consequent to the meeting held on 21.03.2023. A prayer was also made to initiate an enquiry for violation of the provision contained in Section 52(3) of the Act.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the impugned endorsement was issued by the Executive Officer, while pointing out that, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 269 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an original order or resolution of the Gram Panchayath may question such an order or resolution before the Executive Officer. As rightly pointed out by the Executive Officer, no such original order or resolution was placed by the petitioner to be questioned before the Executive Officer in terms of Section 269. It would be impermissible for the petitioner to seek a direction at the hands -6- NC: 2023:KHC:20230 WP No. 11996 of 2023 of the Executive Officer to summon the records and consider the prayer made by the petitioner. Such a power is not vested with the Executive Officer, under Section 269. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of the Gram Panchayath, or the Panchayath Development Officer or the Secretary, he may question the actions only in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to sub Section 2 of Section 59 of the Act which provides that whenever a resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayath, a copy of the same shall be forwarded by the Secretary to the executive officer, and copies of the minutes of the meeting shall be furnished to all members. Going by the said provision, it is clear that the petitioner, as an elected member of the Gram Panchayath was entitled to a copy of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayath. Therefore, the petitioner is required to secure such a copy, and thereafter, if he was aggrieved, he could approach the Executive Officer. The petitioner is also not precluded from securing a copy of the resolution under the Right to Information Act. As and when the petitioner secures a copy of the resolution and if is aggrieved -7- NC: 2023:KHC:20230 WP No. 11996 of 2023 by such a resolution, he may approach the competent authority to redress his grievance.
Having found no fault in the impugned endorsement, this Court proceeds to dismissed the writ petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11