Allowed

Smt Shalini v. State of Karnataka by Secretary

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/1357/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged recovery of allegedly misappropriated Grama Panchayath funds as arrears of land revenue based solely on a recommendatory Lokayukta report. The court held the Deputy Commissioner's direction unsustainable for want of inquiry and hearing, quashed the communication and notice, and left liberty to take lawful action.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure-F) and notice dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-G) quashed; liberty reserved to competent authority to act in accordance with law.

Smt Shalini Vs State of Karnataka by Secretary — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26549 WP No. 1357 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.SHALINI W/O SRI.SHANKAR AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT GOUTHHALLI CHIKANAHALLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU -577 132

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY TO DEPT. OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU - 570 001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU-577 101

¶15

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT CHIKMAGALURU-577 101

¶16

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT MUDIGERE TALUK MUDIGERE-577 132

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26549 WP No. 1357 of 2018

¶18

THE NANDIPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT NANDIPURA, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKAMAGALRU-577 111

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.SAVITHA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.ASHOK N.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 TO R.5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 9.11.2017 PASSED BY R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE NOTICE DTD:20.12.2017 ISSUED BY R-5 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner challenges the communication dated 09.11.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, to the Tahasildar and the Executive Officer of Mudigere Taluk, Mudigere, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,22,500/-. This amount is treated as arrears of Land Revenue based on Form No.37 issued by respondent No.5, the Village Accountant of Nandipura Village, Mudigere Taluk, for recovery of the said amount as land revenue. The sum in question is alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner during her tenure as President of the Nandipura Grama Panchayath.

¶25

The Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report dated 23.06.2016 under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26549 WP No. 1357 of 2018

¶27

1984 (hereinafter 'the Act, 1984') to the 2nd respondent, stating that the petitioner, who served as President of the Nadipura Grama Panchayath, is also responsible for misappropriating funds, as per the report of the Technical Audit Cell.

¶28

In response, respondent No.2 directed the Tahasildar to recover the allegedly misappropriated amount from the petitioner, treating it as arrears of land revenue.

¶29

Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.P. Hegde, representing the petitioner, argues that the Lokayukta's report merely recommends action under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1984. The competent authority under Sub-Section (4) should examine the report and inform the Lokayukta of the proposed action based on the report. Thus, respondent No.2's directive to recover the alleged misappropriated amount without examining the report and initiating action is without authority and legally unsustainable. He relies on decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, citing the case of SRI.SANJEEV KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned AGA and counsel for the respondents argue that the Lokayukta's report, based on an inquiry by the Technical Auditor Cell, establishes the petitioner's responsibility for misappropriating funds during her tenure as President of the Grama Panchayath. Therefore, respondent No.2, exercising power under Sub-Section 157(2) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, directed the Tahasildar to recover the amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:26549 WP No. 1357 of 2018

¶33

The arguments of both parties have been duly examined.

¶34

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Sanjeev Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka (supra) observed that the Competent Authority must examine the report received under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1984, and within three months, communicate to the Lokayukta the action proposed based on the report forwarded under Section 12(2) of the Act, 1984.

¶35

Section 12 of the Act, 1984 clearly stipulates that the Competent Authority must act on the Lokayukta's recommendations and communicate the action taken after examination. The report submitted by the Lokayukta is only recommendatory and not conclusive proof. Respondent No. 2, based on the report, should have conducted an inquiry to provide an opportunity for the Petitioner to defend the allegations of misappropriation by allowing a hearing.

¶36

In this case, respondent No.2, instead of examining the report and conducting an inquiry to establish the petitioner's misappropriation of Grama Panchayath funds, directed the concerned Tahasildar to recover the allegedly misappropriated amount as arrears of land revenue. This action violates principles of natural justice.

¶37

Therefore, the communication from respondent No.2 to the concerned Tahasildar, directing the recovery of funds from the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26549 WP No. 1357 of 2018

¶39

petitioner as arrears of land revenue, lacks authority and is unsustainable.

¶40

Hence, I pass the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The impugned communication dated 09.11.2017 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-F and the notice dated 20.12.2017 issued by respondent No.5 – Village Accountant are hereby quashed.

¶44

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the competent Authority to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NBM

Smt Shalini v. State of Karnataka by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shalini v. State of Karnataka by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allwin Scientifics Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. B S Prabavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Jaya Gupta Vs Recovery Officer-I

Sri Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the Labour Commissioner