Dismissed¶53

Sri. Krishnamurthy T M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025WP/1100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge (N S Sanjay Gowda, J.), High Court of Karnataka, 21.01.2025, WP No. 1100 of 2025 (LB-ELE), NC: 2025:KHC:2475. Keywords: Rule 4, Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995; service of notice of proposed election; refusal of RPAD notice; postal endorsement; deemed/attempted service; gram panchayat President election; calendar of events; costs for misleading the Court. Dismissed with Rs. 50,000/- costs payable to Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru; Assistant Commissioner directed to convene election meeting within one week. No precedents cited or discussed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were in fact sought to be served with the notice, but they deliberately avoided receipt of notice. ¶48

Sri. Krishnamurthy T M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice proposing to fix the date of election was served/communicated on the petitioners as required under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995, and whether non-service renders the proceedings for election to the post of President illegal.

¶33

Court's answer

The petitioners were in fact sought to be served with the notice, but they deliberately avoided receipt of notice.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Since an attempt was made to serve the notices on the petitioners, the requirement of the 1995 Rules stands complied with and there is no infirmity in the fixing of the election to the post of President.

¶48

Key takeaways

The endorsement made by the postal authorities must be accepted, since they have no subsisting interest in the matter.ratio¶43
Consequent direction: the Assistant Commissioner is to convene a meeting for conducting the election within one week.ratio¶49
Finding the petitioners guilty of a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court by contending that notices were not dispatched, costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the petitioners, payable to Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, within two weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-ELE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution - election to the post of President of Karahalli Grama Panchayath, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District - challenge to meeting notice dated 13.01.2025 (No. KA.GRA.PAN.BANGARPET.78/2024-25) fixing the calendar of events - contention that the Rule 4 notice proposing to fix the date of election under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995 was not served on the petitioners - election scheduled for 20.01.2025 had been adjourned by interim order dated 17.01.2025 - AGA produced Register showing notices served on all members, with RPAD covers returned bearing postal endorsement of refusal of service by petitioners on 16.01.2025 - Held: attempt having been made to serve the petitioners, the requirement of the 1995 Rules is complied with; no infirmity in the fixing of the election; petitioners deliberately avoided notice and misled the Court - writ petition DISMISSED with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable to Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, within two weeks; Assistant Commissioner directed to convene the election meeting within one week. (N S Sanjay Gowda, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2025 (LB-ELE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY T M S/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA T M AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶10

SMT. M. GIRIJAMMA, WIFE OF T.M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.5, THIMMAPURA, KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 114.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR 563 101

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶21

KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR 563 101

¶22

THE ELECTION OFFICER, ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 114

¶23

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KARAHALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 114.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEETING NOTICE DATED. 13.01.2025 BEARING NO. KA.GRA.PAN.BANGARPET.78/2024-25 BY FIXING THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS IN RESPECT OF THE POST OF PRESIDENT OF KARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BANGARPET TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-D, & DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACT IN TERMS OF THE RULE 4 OF THE KARNATAKA GRAM SWARAJ AND PANCHAYATH RAJ (ELECTION OF ADHYAKSHA AND UPADHYAKSHA OF GRAM PANCHAYATH) RULES, 1995 BEFORE PUBLISHING THE CALENDAR OF EVENTS & ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The prayer in this writ petition is for quashing of the meeting notice dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure ‘D’) by which the calendar of events has been issued in respect of election to the post of Karahalli Grama Panchayat, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District.

¶32

The additional prayer sought for in the petition was to direct respondents to act in terms of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1995 [for short, ‘ the 1995 Rules ’] before publishing the calendar of events.

¶33

It was the main contention of the petitioners that as required under Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules, the notice proposing to fix the date of election was not communicated to the petitioners. It was contended that since the notice had not been served on the petitioners, the entire proceedings leading up to the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶36

conduct of election to the post of President would be illegal.

¶37

On 17.01.2025, taking note of this submission that the election was being conducted in violation of Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules, the election that was scheduled to be conducted on 20.01.2025 was ordered to be adjourned until further orders and the learned Additional Government Advocate (‘ AGA’ ) was directed to accept notice and secure instructions as to whether the notices of the proposed election were indeed served on all the members of the Panchayat.

¶38

The learned AGA places on record the Register in which it is endorsed that notices have been served on all the members, but notices to the petitioners, when sought to be served, were not accepted by the petitioners. This endorsement is dated 13.01.2025.

¶39

The learned AGA also places on record the copy of the registered covers sent to the petitioners on

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶42

13.01.2025 which carries an endorsement of the postal authorities that the petitioners herein refused service of notice on 16.01.2025. This petition was presented on the following day, i.e. on 17.01.2025.

¶43

It is to be stated here that the endorsement made by the postal authorities will have to be accepted since they have no subsisting interest in the matter.

¶44

Arguments are sought to be advanced that the refusal of notice by the petitioners could not have been possible because the petitioners were in the Court on the entire day on 16.01.2025.

¶45

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Register produced by the learned AGA indicates that notices have been served on all the members of the Grama Panchayat and it is only because the petitioners herein refused to receive the notice on 13.01.2025, the RPAD notices were returned.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶48

I am convinced that the petitioners were in fact sought to be served with the notice, but they have deliberately avoided the receipt of notice. In my view, since an attempt was made to serve the notices on the petitioners, the requirement of the 1995 Rules have been complied with and there is no infirmity in the fixing of election to the post of the President.

¶49

Since by virtue of the interim order, the election that was scheduled came to be adjourned until further orders, it would be appropriate to direct the Assistant Commissioner to convene a meeting for conducting election within a period of one week from today.

¶50

Since I am also of the view that the petitioners made a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court by contending that notices were not at all dispatched as required under Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules, and the material produced by the learned AGA indicates that notices have been served on all the members of the

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2475 WP No. 1100 of 2025

¶52

Panchayat and only these petitioners refused service of notice, it would be appropriate to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on the petitioners payable to the Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bengaluru, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶53

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶54

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶55

RK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri. Krishnamurthy T M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnamurthy T M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kusumlatha Verma Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Arvind Kumar Parekh Vs the Commissioner

Sri Abdul Nazeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ramesh K S Vs the Commissioner

Smt.Jayalakshmi Vs the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

Shri Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka