Karnataka High Court
K Babu vs Panchayath Development Officer on 5 January, 2021
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.15799/2020 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. K BABU
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT GOKERE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
2. JAGANATH
S/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT PUTTAPPANAGUDI BEEDHI
WARD NO.18
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SACHIN B S, ADV.)
AND:
1. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
YALLIYOORU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
YALIYOORU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
2. SECRETARY GRADE - I
YALLIYOORU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
2
3. PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS
YALLIYOORU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DEVANAHALI TALUK PANCHAYATH
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR FISHERY
DEVANAHALI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
6. MANOJ S
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
AGED: MAJOR
R/AT GOKERE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AGA. FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 15.05.2020 ISSUED BY R1
TO 3 AND IMPUGNED LICENSE DATED 03.08.2020 ISSUED IN
FAVOUR OF R6 BY R1 AND 2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 15.05.2020 and the impugned licence dated 3.08.2020 issued in favour of respondent No.6 and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to hold public auction in respect of Gokare Pond situated in the jurisdiction of the respondent - Yalliyooru Grama Panchayath.
2. Respondent - Yalliyooru Grama Panchayath issued public notice dated 15.05.2020 inviting applications for fish farming for the year 2020-2021. Application of respondent No.6 was accepted and licence was issued in favour of Respondent No.6 as per Annexure-B by the Panchayath Development Officer, Yalliyooru Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Aggrieved by the issuance of licence in favour of respondent No.6, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.
4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that normally Government contracts are awarded through tender process. No such tender process is followed nor publicity was given with regard to Annexure-A notice inviting application for fish farming. There was no transparency in awarding licence in favour of respondent No.6. As the entire process is opposed to existing norms, writ petition would be maintainable. The petitioner is questioning the licence issued under Annexure-B for fish farming by the Panchayath Development Officer.
4. Licence for fish farming to the respondent No.6 was issued as per Annexure-B on collecting licence fee of Rs.5000/- for the period 2020-21 on 03.08.2020. The present writ petition is filed in December 2020 after more than 3 moths of granting licence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had applied and his application for fish farming is rejected. It is also not the case of the petitioner or nothing is pleaded with regard 5 to violation or otherwise of provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short the 'Act'). Section 4(ee) of the Act makes it clear that procedure prescribed under Chapter-II of the Act shall not apply to procurement of goods and services where the procurement of goods or services by the Grama Panchayaths and Taluk Panchyaths, for the purposes and value of such procurement does not exceed rupees one lakh. The petitioner has not made out any extraordinary ground of element of public interest to entertain writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Appeal is provided under Section 269 of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the 1993 Act'), against any order of the Grama Panchayath under the Act. Section 269 of the 1993 Act reads as follows :-
"269. Appeals.- [(1) Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided 6 elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.] (2) The Appellate Authority may after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard and after such enquiry as it deems fit, decide the appeal and its decision shall be final.
(3) Any appeal under sub-section (1) pending before the Zilla Parishad shall on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 stand transferred to the Assistant Commissioner and such appeal shall be decided by him as if it has been filed before him."
Alternate remedy of appeal is not a bar to entertain writ petition, but it is self restraint imposed upon by the Constitutional Courts. When a statute provides for an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal and when the writ petition involves examination of facts, it may not be proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the 7 petitioners are provided with alternate remedy of appeal, I decline to entertain the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms