Dismissed¶63

The State of Karnataka v. Mr P S Lokanath

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/18891/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashraya Scheme; provisional/beneficiary list preparation; Grama Sabha; Grama Panchayat members; Panchayat Development Officer (PDO); dereliction of duty; warning to PDO; disciplinary enquiry; charges partly proved; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020; judicial review; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; Karnataka Lokayuktha; consequential and monetary benefits; WP No. 18891 of 2023 (S-KSAT); decided 11-02-2026; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner-State; the writ petition was dismissed. The Court cautioned the concerned Panchayat Development Officer not to indulge in such acts in future while discharging his duties, even while preparing the provisional list. ¶63

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr P S Lokanath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dated 14.10.2022 in Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020 — allowing the applications of respondent Nos.1 and 2, setting aside the State's order dated 02.03.2020 and directing payment of consequential benefits — should be quashed/set aside. +2 more

¶35

Court's answer

No grounds are made out by the petitioner-State to set aside the Tribunal's order, which was passed on an assessment of the material on record; accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

Given the clear admission of PW3, Executive Officer, that the preparation of the beneficiaries list under the Ashraya Scheme is made by the Grama Sabha and the Members of the Grama Panchayat, the argument that the Tribunal ought not to have exercised judicial review cannot be accepted.

¶57

Key takeaways

Although the list is prepared by the Grama Panchayat members, it is the duty of the Panchayat Development Officer to verify it; the failure to do so is dereliction of duty, and the concerned Panchayat Development Officer is warned not to indulge in any such act in future, even while preparing the provisional list.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (H.P. Sandesh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.; order per H.P. Sandesh, J.) dismisses the State of Karnataka's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dated 14-10-2022 in Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020, by which the Tribunal allowed the applications of two Panchayat Development Officers, set aside the State's order dated 02.03.2020, and directed payment of consequential benefits including monetary benefits within three months. On the enquiry evidence (PW3, Executive Officer), the charges of receiving money and making ineligible candidates beneficiaries under the Ashraya Scheme were not proved; only preparation of the provisional list — admittedly prepared by the Grama Sabha/Grama Panchayat members and not by the PDO — stood partly proved; the earmarked land remained with the Government, with no allotment or hakkupatra issued. Holding that, on PW3's clear admissions, the argument that the Tribunal ought not to have exercised judicial review could not be accepted, the Court found no grounds to set aside the Tribunal's order. The Court nevertheless observed that verification of the list was the PDO's duty, that its omission was dereliction of duty, and warned the concerned PDO not to indulge in such acts in future, including while preparing provisional lists.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.18891 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. P.S. LOKANATH S/O. LATE P.B. SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KADABAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 231.

¶15

RESIDING AT NO.77, I MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, JAGAJEEVANARAMANAGAR BENGALURU-560 018.

¶16

MR. C.M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MUGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHIKKABANAWARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 090.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.48, N.K. FARM NEAR R.V. ENGINEERING COLLEGE DUBASI PALYA, AMMA BAKERY BUILDING KENGERI BENGALURU-560 059.

¶20

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI VINAYAK S. PANDIT, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, FOR R-1, & SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶25

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2022 IN APPLICATION NOS.1624 AND 1625 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶33

Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court

¶34

Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, Sri Vinayak S. Pandit, learned counsel for Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3Lokayukta.

¶35

The State has challenged the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020, wherein the applications filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were allowed, the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the petitioner-State was set aside and the State Government was directed to pay all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within the timeframe of three months.

¶36

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.3Lokayukta would vehemently contend that the scope of the Tribunal is very limited. The impugned order passed by the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Tribunal is without properly appreciating the position of law and erroneously allowed the applications filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is required to be set aside by this Court.

¶41

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2 would submit that while passing the order, the Tribunal has taken note of the charge levelled against respondent Nos.1 and 2. He would submit that the charge is only partly proved with regard to the preparation of provisional list and the same is taken note by the Tribunal. Further, there is no acceptance of provisional list and the witnesses have admitted that the land of two acres, which is earmarked for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is still in the name of the Government, no allotment of the site is made and no hakkupatra is issued to any of the beneficiaries. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶42

Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Lokayukta and considering the material on record, the charge against respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

is that they prepared the list for allotting the sites under the

¶46

Ashraya Scheme by receiving the amount and also made ineligible candidates to get the benefits. The Tribunal, while considering the material on record and particularly, taking note of the enquiry report submitted by PW3, Executive Officer, comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partly proved and nothing is placed on record with regard to receiving the amount and making ineligible candidates as beneficiaries. However, it is not in dispute that the provisional list was prepared. In this regard, PW3, Executive Officer, has stated that though the Panchayat Development Officer of K. Gollahalli Grama Panchayat has sent the list of the beneficiaries to his Office of the Taluk Panchayat, but the same was returned back as it was not in accordance with the guidelines. As per the guidelines, only women are the beneficiaries, however, there were names of male beneficiaries. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the preparation of beneficiaries list under Ashraya Scheme will be done in the Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat and the Members of the Grama Panchayat will make selection list of the beneficiaries. He further admitted that for preparation of the beneficiaries list

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

under the Ashraya Scheme, there is no power for the Panchayat Secretary or the Panchayat Development Officer of the said Panchayat.

¶50

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the oral evidence led by PW1 to PW3 itself goes to show that there is no preparation of the final selection list in this case and provisional list was prepared and it was prepared by the Members of the Grama Panchayat in the Grama Sabha and the same was forwarded to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, but he has not finalised the same and returned it back. Witnesses admitted that the said land of two acres, which is earmarked for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is still in the name of the Government and no allotment of the site was made and no hakkupatra was issued to any of the beneficiaries. Therefore, these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer in his report and only on the basis of evidence of witnesses in the examination-in-chief, he has come

¶51

to the conclusion that the charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partly proved. The Enquiry Officer specifically held in his report regarding the allegations that respondent Nos.1

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

and 2, by receiving the amount from some of the beneficiaries, have prepared the list containing their names illegally as beneficiaries is not proved. Therefore, under those circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order.

¶56

When it is the clear admission of PW3, Executive

¶57

Officer, that the preparation of beneficiaries list under the Ashraya Scheme is made by the Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat, the Members of the Grama Panchayat will make the selection list of the beneficiaries and thereafter, the said list will be notified in the General Body Meeting and the same will be finalised, the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State that the Tribunal ought not to have exercised the judicial review cannot be accepted. Hence, no grounds are made out by the petitioner-State to set aside the order of the Tribunal and the same is considered assessing the material on record.

¶58

As per the guidelines, the names of only women beneficiaries were supposed to be sent, however, the names of male beneficiaries were sent and the same was returned. Even

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

though the list will be prepared by the Grama Panchayat members, it is the duty of the Panchayat Development Officer to verify, however, the same is not done in this case. It is dereliction of duty on the part of the Panchayat Development Officer. Hence, the concerned Panchayat Development Officer is warned not to indulge in any such act in future while discharging his duties even while preparing the provisional list.

¶62

With the above observations, the writ petition stands

¶63

dismissed .

¶64

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶65

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶66

KVK

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

The State of Karnataka v. Mr P S Lokanath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Mr P S Lokanath

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

Asif Vs State of Karnataka

Ateeq Ahmed Vs National Investigation Agency

The Registrar Vs Shri Mothilal Naik M

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri R Lokesh

Smt Rukshana Khanum Vs Sri Abdul Bashid

Rajendra Naik Vs State of Karnataka