Disposed

Palegowda G B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/4311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gram Panchayat members challenged an endorsement refusing to consider handing over records, which cited an interim court order in another writ petition. After that petition was withdrawn, the court directed respondent No.5 to consider the representation and pass an appropriate order within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.5 directed to consider representation (Annexure-E) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 30 days.

Palegowda G B Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4311 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

PALEGOWDA G B S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT AREHALLI, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577526.

¶6

R SHIVANNA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/O JAYANTHINAGAR VILLAGE, HOLAKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶7

P. J. OBANNA

¶8

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

S/O JAYYANNA P J

¶10

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶11

SHRUTHI K S W/O BHARATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶12

AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶13

MEENAKSHMAMMA W/O RAVEENDRABABU K. L., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER,

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶15

R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE,

¶16

HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶17

SUSHEELAMMA W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/O JAIPURA VILLAGE, HOALKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶18

JAYALAKSHMI W/O PALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT MEMBER, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.

¶23

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION, VISHVESVARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU - 01.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶25

PLANNING DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶26

HOLALKERE TOWN MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577526

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶29

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AREHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, AREHALLI, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1-R4 SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R6 SERVED)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-5 IN NO. PU.SA.HO.KAM.SHA.C.R. 2023-24 DTD 19.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 22.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, REPRESENTATION DTD 22.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E1, REPRESENTATIONS DTD 19.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E2 AND E3 TO THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners have filed this writ petition for quashing of the endorsement issued by respondent No.5 dated 19.01.2024 vide Annexure-D and seeking for the mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the representations vide Annexures 'E to E3'.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶39

The brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶40

It is the case of the petitioners that, the petitioners are elected as the members of 6^th respondent in the general elections. The State Government issued Gazetted Notification declaring the Town Panchayath Area of Holalkere including 6^th respondent as a smaller urban area and as a Town Municipal Council area of Holalkere. This Court granted an interim order restraining the respondent State from proceeding further in terms of the notification in W.P.No.19561/2021 filed by the members of 5^th respondent. Respondent No.5, after receipt of the representation given by petitioner No.1 requesting to hand over the Gram Panchayath records, issued an endorsement, the petitioners gave a similar representation to respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not considered the representation and passed any order on the said representation. Hence, this writ petition.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶43

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in W.P.No.19561/2021 has withdrawn the writ petition today. In view of the same, Annexure-B would not survive for consideration. It become redundant. Hence, respondent No.5 may be directed to consider Annexure-E1.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that, if reasonable time is granted to respondent No.5, respondent No.5 would consider the representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶46

Heard and perused records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the State Government

¶48

has issued a notification dated 23.03.2021 declining the Town Panchayath including 6^th respondent as a smaller

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶50

urban area as Town Municipal Council Area of Holalkere Town. Some of the Municipal Council, aggrieved by the notification dated 23.03.2021, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.19561/2021. This Court, vide order dated 08.11.2021, restrained the State from proceeding further in terms of impugned notification, till the next date of hearing. The interim order was extended from time to time. Today, the petitioners in W.P.No.19651/2021 have withdraw the writ petition. Respondent No.5 after the representation submitted by petitioner No.1, submitted a representation to hand over the Gram Panchayath records.

¶51

On the contrary, instead of handing over the Gram Panchayath records, issued an endorsement to the petitioners stating that Town Municipal Council filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19561/2021 and this Court granted an interim order. Hence, they issued an endorsement. In view of withdrawal of the writ petition, the impugned endorsement becomes redundant and respondent No.5 is directed to consider Annexure-E and pass appropriate

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:34825 WP No. 4311 of 2024

¶54

order in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days of

¶55

the receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶57

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶58

SSB

Palegowda G B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palegowda G B v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Doddananjappa Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri Appanna

Sri Honnegowda Vs the Chief Commissioner

S Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Halgo Ads Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike