Remanded

Sri K C Ramachandra, 65 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Under Secy.

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2016WP/18732/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed writ petitions challenging an order rejecting a request to include a village under a different Panchayat Headquarters. The Court held that the administrative authority acted as a quasi-judicial body failing to apply its own mind independently without assigning proper reasons, and remanded the matter for fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.3.2015 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, to pass fresh orders after hearing concerned parties.

Sri K C Ramachandra, 65 Yrs Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

Writ Petitions 18732 & 18735 / 2015 (LB Ele)

¶6

Between

¶7

1 Sri K C Ramachandra, 65 yrs

¶8

S/o late C V Krishnappa Shetty

¶9

2 Sri Jayaramegowda, 55 yrs

¶10

S/o Narayana Gowda

¶11

Both are r/a Cheemaachanahalli Village Channarayapattana Hobli Devanahalli Taluk

¶12

Bangalore Rural District Petitioners

¶13

(By Mr Vivek Reddy, Sr. counsel for Sri K N Subba Reddy, Adv.)

¶14

And

¶15

1 State of Karnataka – by its Under Secy. Department of Panchayath Raj M S Building, Bangalore 1

¶16

2 Regional Commissioner Bangalore Division II Floor, BMTC Building K H Road, Shanthinagar Bangalore

¶17

��

¶18

2/5

¶19

3 Deputy Commissioner

¶20

Bangalore Rural District Bangalore Respondents

¶21

(By Mr V Sreenidhi, AGA)

¶22

Writ Petitions are filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying to quash the notification dated 4.2.2015 - Annexure B and the order dated 30.3.2015 – Annexure D, etc.

¶23

The Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Mr Vivek Reddy, Sr. counsel for Sri K N Subba Reddy, Adv. For Petnr. Mr V Sreenidhi, AGA . For Respdts.

¶26

1 The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the

¶27

order passed by the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division in case No.KPR RP 5 2014-15 dated 30.3.2015 by which the said authority rejected the revision petition filed by the villagers of Cheemachanahalli Village and Nellur Gram Panchayat members, Devanahalli requesting to include their village Cheemachanahalli within the Panchayat Headquarters of Channarayapatna in stead of Nellur Panchayat Headquarters, on the ground that the said village was nearer to the Panchayat Headquarters of Channarayapatna.

¶28

��

¶29

3/5

¶30

2 The petitioners state that the said village should not have been

¶31

attached with the Panchayat Headquarters at Nellur since the distance between Nellur and Cheemaachanahalli was 5.5 kms. whereas the distance

¶32

between Cheemachanahalli and Channarayapatna was 3 kms.

¶33

3 The reasons assigned in the impugned order are quoted below:

¶34

After considering the material available on record, the report of Deputy Commissioner and arguments of applicant as per para 3, the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner is reasonable and as such the following order is made.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

As per the reasons in paragraph 4, the revision petition filed by the applicant is rejected.

¶37

4 Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Vivek Reddy, Senior Advocate

¶38

urged that contrary to the findings of fact available on record that the said village was more nearer to Channarayapatna Panchayat Headquarters, the learned Regional Commissioner has wrongly upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner attaching the said village Cheemachanahalli with Nellur Panchayat Headquarters and on the basis of the said order, the forthcoming

¶39

Panchayat General elections are likely to adversely affect the petitioners.

¶40

��

¶41

4/5

¶42

Therefore, he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the said

¶43

authority with a direction to the said authority to pass fresh orders giving cogent reasons, in accordance with law.

¶44

5 Learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and submitted it is an administrative order and does not call for any interference under Art.226 of the Constitution.

¶45

6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the

¶46

opinion that though the impugned order appears to be in the nature of an administrative order but in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the alleged reasons assigned by the Regional Commissioner cannot be said to be cogent and sufficient. He has just affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, without assigning any proper reasons on his own part but

¶47

merely observing that the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, appear to be reasonable, therefore his order is affirmed.

¶48

7 A quasi judicial authority hearing an appeal against the order passed

¶49

by lower authority is expected in law to apply its own mind independently

¶50

��

¶51

5/5

¶52

and after assigning proper reasons, he is of course at liberty to pass

¶53

appropriate orders in the matter. In view of the aforesaid quoted reasons as they are, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to go back to the said

¶54

authority Regional Commissioner, Bangalore to once again hear the concerned parties in the matter and pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law.

¶55

8 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure D dated 30.3.2015 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division for passing fresh orders, in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the said authority, in the first instance, on 4^th July, 2016 and the said authority is expected to pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from that date.

¶56

Sd/Judge

¶57

Sri K C Ramachandra, 65 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Under Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K C Ramachandra, 65 Yrs v. State of Karnataka - by Its Under Secy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakshamma, 75 Yrs Vs State of Karnataka - by Its

M v Dinesh Kumar Vs the Zilla Panchayat

A R Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

S N Raghu Vs the Grama Panchayath

Sumangali Seva Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Virginia Developers Private Limited Vs the Commissioner