Allowed

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. v. the President

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/13406/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayath lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 237(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act against a resolution of the Gram Panchayath, which should be challenged under Section 269. The impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 30.04.2021 and 29.05.2017 were quashed, and Writ Petition allowed.

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.13406/2021(LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. SHRIKANTEGOWDA. D. L. S/O. LATE D. LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC RETD. PROFESSOR, R/AT MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI BASAVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE PRESIDENT ZILLA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶13

THE PRESIDENT TALUK PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE TALUK PANCHAYATH, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

¶14

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND SECRETARY BHARATHINAGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

¶16

SMT. KEMPAMMA LATE LINGEGOWDA, MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/AT MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1, R2 AND R3 SERVED; R5 DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE R-1 IN APPEAL DTD.30.4.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY R-1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND IN FAVOUR OF THE R- 4 WITHOUT BEING CONSIDER THE REFER THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DTD.29.5.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-G

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question certain orders passed by the Adhyaksha of Taluk Panchayath dated 30.04.2021. The appeal having found in favour with the appellant therein was called in question by respondent No.4 before the Adhyaksha of the Jilla Panchayath in appeal No.08/2017-18.

¶24

The order/resolution that is called in question is passed by the Bharathinagara Gram Panchayath. A resolution of the Gram Panchayath is to be challenged by the party aggrieved invoking Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and not before the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayath under Section 237(1) of the said Act.

¶25

Therefore, the order passed by the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayath annulling the resolution of the Gram Panchayath, is on the face of it without jurisdiction. The same goes with the appeal filed by the respondent

¶26

¶27

No.1, before the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Panchayath, who also did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against an order which was by itself nonest in the eye of law.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ Petition is allowed; ii) The orders dated 30.04.2021 and 29.05.2017, stand quashed;

¶31

iii) Petitioner is reserved liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 269 of the Act before the competent authority, if he so desires.

¶32

iv) If the petitioner prefers an appeal within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Authority shall consider the same on merits without reference to delay in filing the appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. v. the President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shrikantegowda. D. L. v. the President

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

M/S. Trilokesh Smart Homes Vs M/S. Glenloch Properties LLP

Mr Madhava Koodlu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nina Susanna Varghese Vs State by White Field Police Station

Singrigowda Vs State of Karnataka

Hemalatha Vs Aro Bbmp

Sri H Vishwanath Vs the Commissioner