Allowed

Gowramma v. Adhyaksha

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/1019/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed Writ Petition quashing orders dated 19.12.2014 and 09.05.2011 passed by Adhyaksha of Zilla and Taluk Panchayat under Section 237. Held that the correct remedy was appeal under Section 269 before the Executive Officer, rendering Adhyaksha's orders without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders passed by Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat dated 19.12.2014 and 09.05.2011; allowed petitioner to file appeal before Executive Officer.

Gowramma Vs Adhyaksha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1019/2015 (LB - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SATHNOOR VILLAGE, KSABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571401.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE

¶11

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶12

AND

¶13

ADHYAKSHA,

¶14

ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶15

ADHYAKSHA,

¶16

TALUK PANCHAYATH, MANDYA TALUK-571401.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, SATHNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SATHNOOR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571401.

¶18

¶19

SHIVANNA @ SRINIVASA, S/O MANCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NO.240, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, K.P.AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560023.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (VIDEO CONFERENCING); SRI R.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN APPEAL 32/2011-12 DATED 19.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN APPEAL NO.16/2010-11 DATED 09.05.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE - T AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPEALS.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.12.2014 and 09.05.2011 passed by Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, Mandya respectively.

¶26

¶27

Heard Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.J. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri. R. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.4 and have perused the material on record.

¶28

Respondent No.4 challenged the resolution of the Panchayat, which was in favour of the petitioner before the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat invoking Section 237 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).

¶29

An order passed by the Adhyaksha, Taluk Panchayat was called in question by the petitioner in the light of the order being passed by the Adhyaksha, Taluk Panchayat in favour of respondent No.4.

¶30

¶31

The Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, who entertained the appeal has also confirmed the order of the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat passed under Section 237 of the said Act.

¶32

The resolution passed by the Panchayat was to be challenged before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat in terms of Section 269 of the said Act and not before the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat under Section 237 of the said Act.

¶33

The order that is passed by the Adhyaksha is without jurisdiction and the order that confirms an order which was without jurisdiction is also without jurisdiction.

¶34

Therefore, respondent No.4 would be at liberty to call in question the resolution of the Panchayat before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat in terms of Section 269 of the said Act, if available in law at this juncture.

¶35

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Writ Petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. The impugned orders dated 19.12.2014 and 09.05.2011 passed by Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, Mandya respectively stand quashed.

¶40

iii. The petitioner is at liberty to call in question the resolution of the Panchayat dated 09.05.2011 by filing an appeal.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SJK

Gowramma v. Adhyaksha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma v. Adhyaksha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaprasad Navada Vs Leonard Fernandes

Sri. Arun Kumar L Vs the State by Station House Officer

Smt.Lingamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Narayanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vigneshwaran N Vs the Commissioner

Bharath Jagannathan Vs State of Karnataka