- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100316 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI MAHABALESHWAR PATIL S/O. PARASHARAM PATIL AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE CHAIRMAN GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O. MERADA, POST: HALAGA, TALUK. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. PRAVEEN S/O YALLARI GAVADA AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O. HATTARWAD, POST: HALAGA, TALUK. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, & SRI. ANAND D. BAGEWADI., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU. PIN-560001 ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, SUB-DIVISION, BELAGAVI TALUK: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591302. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT,HALAGA TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PIN-591120. RANAJIT, S/O KALLAPA PATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA, R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. SUNIL S/O MARUTI PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA, R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. SMT. MANDA W/O MAHADEV FATAN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, UPA-ADYAKSHA GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O: HALAGA TALUK, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. PANDURANG S/O KRISHNAJI PATIL AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O MERDA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 8. 9. 10. PIN:591120. SMT. INDIRATAI W/O: MAHADEV MEDAR AGE: 50 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O : KARAJAGI, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591120. SMT. NAZIYA W/O: SAMEER AHMED SANADI AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O MERDA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591120. SMT. SWATI, W/O SADANAND PATIL AGED: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK MEMBER, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT HALAGA R/O: KIR HALASHI, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. PIN-591120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R1-2; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED IN 15/01/2025 IN ELECTION / GRA. PAM. /VIVA-01/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. A report has been filed by the learned AGA along with a memo dated 30.01.2025. The same is taken on record. 2. In view of the new facts being brought to the notice of this court as regards the requisition notice under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1994 ('the Rules of 1994' for brevity), the order dated 20.01.2025 is recalled and the matter is taken up for fresh hearing and the following order passed. 3. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated in 15.01.2025 in Election/Gra.Pam./Viva-01/2024-25 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-H. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 ii. To issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner continue to function as Adyakhsha of the 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat till his term expires. iii. To issue any other order, direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent-Panchayat Development Officer [PDO], is playing mischief and that once earlier, a requisition notice was submitted through the PDO and now, once again, a requisition notice bearing the seal, signature and writing of the PDO has been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner. 5. When a copy of the certified requisition notice was furnished to the petitioners, it did not bear any seal and signature of the PDO. Only the first sheet of the said requisition notice had been furnished to the petitioner. Subsequently, when the petitioner sought for certified copies of the said requisition notice, the petitioner was furnished with the requisition notice of both the front and the backside - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 of the said notice, the backside of the notice indicated the endorsement of the PDO at the bottom of the said page. It is on that basis contended that the petitioners on the first occasion had been deliberately misled by furnishing only the facing page of the requisition notice without furnishing the back page of the requisition notice, which came to their knowledge only after having applied for a certified copy thereof. 6. The original records having also been produced by learned AGA and inspected by this court, it was seen that the endorsement of the PDO is not at the bottom of the page, but on the top of the page and at the bottom page there is an endorsement made by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, even the certified copy which had been issued to the petitioners is not proper and correct and the same continues to be a truncated document indicating as if the endorsement of the PDO is at the bottom of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 the page when it was in fact at the top of the page and the endorsement and writing of the Assistant Commissioner has not been provided in the certified copy. As such, the Deputy Commissioner was called upon to cause an enquiry and submit his report. The said report has been filed today. 7. Shockingly, the Deputy Commissioner has absolved every one of their respective responsibilities by stating that the certified copy has been issued by inadvertence. I am unable to accept the said report of the Deputy Commissioner. The manner in which the certified copy has been furnished, as indicated above, can only lead to one single conclusion that the same is deliberate inasmuch as, as referred to supra, the endorsement is shown to be at the bottom of the page without the endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner. How the endorsement came to be shifted to the bottom of the page and how the endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 has been eschewed is not forthcoming in any of the statements. It was for the Deputy Commissioner to have caused a proper enquiry into this and submit a report. Such a report is not expected to be furnished by the Deputy Commissioner in whom this Court relied upon to conduct a proper enquiry and submit a report. 8. In that view of the matter, the report which has been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner is rejected. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department are directed to conduct a joint enquiry in a proper manner and take action against the concerned for having misled this Court, as also misled the parties before this Court. This Court hopes and believes that the Principal Secretaries would discharge their duties in a proper manner. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 9. Coming back to the merits of the matter, the petition was earlier dismissed on account of a false copy being furnished by the Assistant Commissioner's office and it is in that view that the said order came to be recalled. 10. The certified copy which has been produced subsequently by the petitioners, as also verification of the original records indicates that the requisition notice bears a seal, signature and writing of the PDO on a requisition notice issued under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 as held by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SANGAN GOWDA N BIRADAAR AND ANOTHER - v- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF PANCHAYATH KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1], the PDO did not have any business to affix any seal, signature or writing on the requisition notice. This Court, while dealing with the same, in the case of SMT.GEETHA- 1 W.P. No.203171/2024 dated 26.11.2024 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 v- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER2 has issued certain directions which are also required to be complied with. In that view of the matter, the present requisition notice being contrary to the judgment passed in Sangana Gowda Biradaar's case, I am of the considered opinion that there is deliberate default committed by the PDO as regards whom necessary action would have to be initiated. This deliberate action is also compounded by the deliberate issuance of truncated certified copies which have also been made to deliberately mislead this Court. This fact would also have to be taken into account when proceedings against the PDO are initiated. 11. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued. 2 W.P. No.100205/2025 dated 20.01.2025 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 ii. The impugned notice dated 15.01.2025 in ELECTION/GRA.PAM./VIVA-01/2024-25 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-H is hereby quashed. iii. Liberty is reserved to Respondents No.4 to 10 to initiate fresh proceedings under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against the Adyaksha and Upadyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1994. They would be well advised not to submit any requisition to the PDO but directly to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner would be well advised not to receive any requisition notice with any seal, signature or endorsement by the PDO. iv. In the event of the Assistant Commissioner seeking for verification of the identity and or the signature of the requisition notice, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2008 WP No. 100316 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner would be required to obtain such verification by following due process and procedure as prescribed under the Rules. v. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department are directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 3-Panchayat Development Officer in respect of the above observations. vi. A report of the said Principal Secretaries as regards the action taken to be placed on record of this case on or before 14.03.2025. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 111