- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37160 WP No. 16667 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16667 OF 2022 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHMA N PRADEEP KUMAR W/O PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PRESIDENT, ANUGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, HOSAKOTE TALUK-561114, BENGALURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.PAVITHRA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -560027 3. THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37160 WP No. 16667 of 2022 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI -562110. 4. ANUGONDANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANUGONDANAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK -560067 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 30.7.2022 IN NO.ABHIVRUDHI/CR/30/2022-23 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K IN PETITIONER SO FAR AS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37160 WP No. 16667 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner was serving as president of Anugondanahalli Gram Panchayat. On the ground that he has misused the funds, the proceedings have been initiated against him under Section 43-A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is not guilty of the allegations made and even otherwise, the impugned notice is issued without jurisdiction. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, upon instructions, submits that the impugned notice has been issued by a competent Officer (respondent No.2) and what has been issued to the petitioner is only a show cause notice and if the petitioner were to reply to the same, it would be considered in accordance with law. He further submits that the petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction also if required. 4. What is challenged in the instant writ petition is only the show cause notice issued under Section 43-A and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37160 WP No. 16667 of 2022 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Hence, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to reply to the said show cause notice and in turn direct the authorities concerned to initiate action against the petitioner only if he is found to be guilty of the allegations and not otherwise. 5. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of. ii. Petitioner is given three (03) weeks time from today to reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.07.2022, issued by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-K to the writ petition). iii. The petitioner is permitted to take up all necessary contentions, including the jurisdictional aspect. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37160 WP No. 16667 of 2022 iv. The concerned authority shall process the reply of the petitioner in accordance with law and only thereafter initiate appropriate action as contemplated in law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH