Sri Nagaraja L Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2025 AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B AND 03.12.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representations dated 29.11.2025 and 03.12.2025 and to conduct a proper enquiry regarding failure of six members of

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:52327 WP No. 37315 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the respondent No.4 in attending four consecutive meetings and initiate proceedings for their disqualification.

¶33

The petitioner claims that he is a member of the respondent No.4. He claims that six elected members of the respondent No.4 had absented themselves from the meetings of the panchayat held on 26.05.2025, 14.08.2025, 13.11.2025 and 24.11.2025. In view of the absence of the said members, which obstructed the functioning of respondent No.4, several members of the panchayat including the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.11.2025 before the respondent No.3 and respondent No.2, requesting them to initiate proceedings for disqualification of the said six members. Thereafter, a representation dated 03.12.2025 was addressed to the respondent No.3. However, no action is taken by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, though they are the competent authorities empowered to enquire into and adjudicate matters relating to disqualification. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation and initiate necessary action.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:52327 WP No. 37315 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submission and submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be directed to consider the representations and to conduct an enquiry regarding the absence of the six members from the meetings and initiate proceedings for their disqualification.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits

¶39

that the representation filed before the respondent No.3 is only on 03.12.2025. Even before the respondent No.3 could consider the representation, the petitioner has rushed to this Court.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the members who are to be disqualified are not arrayed as parties in this writ petition. He however did not dispute the fact that the petitioner and other members had submitted representation dated 29.11.2025 and 03.12.2025 seeking disqualification of the said six members.

¶41

In view of the contentions of the petitioner that six members of the panchayat had absented from four meetings and that thereby they obstructed the smooth functioning of the panchayat, the representation of the petitioner had to be

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52327 WP No. 37315 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

considered immediately so as to infuse regularity in the functioning of the respondent No.4.

¶45

In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the representations submitted by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed off , directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and initiate necessary proceedings in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that such proceedings shall be concluded before 15.02.2026, when the term of the elected committee comes to an end.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate and

¶47

learned counsel for respondent No.4 are permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days.

¶48

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Sri Nagaraja L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaraja L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Karnataka Waste Management Project Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Surya International Social Service Organisation Vs State of Karnataka

K Muniraju Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Ashok Kumar S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Nayana Shetty Vs Deputy Commissioner