Writ Petition No. 17696 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 17696 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKATESH S/O H.M.MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O HULIKATTE VILLAGE AND POST DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577512. …PETITIONER
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR .K.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND GRAM PANCHAYATH M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION REVENUE DEPARTMENT EX-OFFCIO- SECRETORY (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) BENGALURU-560 027. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFFICE ZILLA PANCHAYATH DAVANAGERE PIN-577201. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. SRI. HALLI BASAVARAJAPP S/O HANUMATHAPPA AGED 56 YEARS MEMBER HULIKATTE GRAM PANCHAYAT DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571606. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 27.06.2025, NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION IN THE LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN TO CONCLUDE ENQUIRY IN CASE NO. ABHIVRUDDI (43 A) CR/7/2024-25, DATED 10.07.2024 AT ANNEXURE-C WHICH IS PENDING AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO 4, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed alleging that there is a complete inaction on the part of respondent No.2 - Regional Commissioner in not concluding the proceedings initiated under Section 43A of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has contended that pursuant to a complaint lodged by him, an enquiry was initiated against private respondent No.4 under Section 43-A(i)(v) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The petitioner’s grievance before this Court is that although the enquiry proceedings were commenced with the issuance of a show-cause notice dated 10.07.2024, respondent No.2 has failed to conclude the said proceedings. This inaction, according to the petitioner, is in clear violation of the Circular dated 12.03.2021 issued by the State Government, which is produced at Annexure-F. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. The instant writ petition seeks a direction to respondent No.2 to conclude the pending enquiry in accordance with law. In view of the nature of relief sought, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court is of the considered view that issuance of notice to respondent No.4 is not warranted at this stage. This Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the Government Circular dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure-F), which reads as follows: "ಸ(cid:2)ಾ(cid:4)ರದ ಆ(cid:8)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:13)ೆ(cid:14): (cid:15)ಾ(cid:16)ಅಪ 597 (cid:15)ಾ(cid:16)ಪಂಅ 2020, (cid:19)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:22)ರು (cid:24):12.03.2021 ಪ(cid:16)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:26)ವ(cid:28)ೆಯ(cid:30)(cid:31) ವ!ಸ"ಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳ #(cid:28)ೆ$"ೆಯ(cid:30)(cid:31) ಕ(cid:28)ಾ(cid:4)ಟಕ (cid:15)ಾ(cid:16)ಮ ಸ()ಾ* ಮತು(cid:26) ಪಂ,ಾಯ- )ಾ* ಅ./ಯಮ 1993ರ ಪ(cid:16)ಕರಣ 43(ಎ) ಮತು(cid:26) 48(4) 48(5)ರ2 /(cid:24)(cid:4)ಷ4ಪ2ಸ"ಾದಂ5ೆ (cid:15)ಾ(cid:16)ಮ ಪಂ,ಾಯ6 ಸದಸ(cid:14)ರು/ ಅಧ(cid:14)8ರು/ ಉ:ಾಧ(cid:14)8ರುಗಳ ;ೕ"ೆ (cid:8)ಾಖ"ಾಗುವ ದೂರುಗ>(cid:15)ೆ ಸಂಬಂ.@ದಂ5ೆ ಯುಕ(cid:26) ,ಾರAೆ ನCೆಸುವ ಅ.(cid:2)ಾರವನು$ ಸಂಬಂ.@ದ Dಾಗಗಳ :ಾ(cid:16)(cid:8)ೇEಕ ಆಯುಕ(cid:26)!(cid:15)ೆ ವ#@ ಆ(cid:8)ೇE@(cid:8)ೆ. ಅದರಂ5ೆ, :ಾ(cid:16)(cid:8)ೇEಕ ಆಯುಕ(cid:26)ರುಗಳF (cid:15)ಾ(cid:16)ಮ ಪಂ,ಾG6 ಸದಸ(cid:14)ರು/ಅಧ(cid:14)8ರು/ಉ:ಾಧ(cid:14)8ರುಗಳ ;ೕ(cid:30)ನ ದೂರುಗಳ ಬ(cid:15)ೆH ಯುಕ(cid:26) ,ಾರAೆಯನು$ /ಯIಾನು(cid:25)ಾರ 90 (cid:24)ನಗಳ(cid:30)(cid:31)ನ ನCೆ@ ,ಾರAಾ ವರ(cid:24)ಯನು$ ಸ(cid:2)ಾ(cid:4)ರದ 6ೕIಾ(cid:4)ನ(cid:2)ಾJK ಸ(cid:30)(cid:31)ಸಲು ಆ(cid:8)ೇE@(cid:8)ೆ." 5. Upon a careful examination of the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 is under a statutory obligation to conclude the enquiry initiated under Section 43 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Section 43 of the Act contemplates a detailed procedure - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR for holding an enquiry into allegations of misconduct or mismanagement by elected members of the Panchayat. The purpose of prescribing a 90 days timeline is to prevent undue delay and harassment. Officers conducting the enquiry are instructed to strictly adhere to the 90 days period unless there are exceptional and recorded reasons for delay. The failure to adhere to this timeline without justification may attract disciplinary action against the concerned officer. 6. The said provision mandates that upon receipt of a complaint disclosing a prima facie case, the competent authority is required to initiate appropriate proceedings, issue notice to the concerned person, conduct a fair and impartial enquiry, and arrive at a reasoned decision within a reasonable time frame. The object and intent of the legislature in incorporating such a provision is to ensure transparency, accountability, and prompt remedial action in matters involving public office. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. In the present case, although the enquiry proceedings were initiated as early as on 10.07.2024 through the issuance of a show-cause notice, it is seen that respondent No.2 has failed to take the matter to its logical conclusion even after the lapse of nearly 11 months. This unexplained delay frustrates the very purpose of the statutory mechanism provided under Section 43 and renders the grievance redressal process ineffective. 8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner, having a legitimate expectation that the enquiry will be concluded in accordance with law, has a corresponding legal right to seek its expeditious disposal. The inaction on the part of respondent No.2 is clearly arbitrary and in derogation of the statutory duty cast upon him. Therefore, this is a fit case where issuance of a writ of mandamus is warranted, directing respondent No.2 to conclude the enquiry after affording a reasonable and fair opportunity to all concerned parties, in a time- - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22612 WP No. 17696 of 2025 HC-KAR bound manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3