- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.200344 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. ERAMMA W/O. AMARAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT, UTAKANOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. UTAKANOOR-584138, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, AND SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALBURGI REGION, MINI VIDHANA SAUDHA, KALABURAGI-585101. TQ/DIST. KALABURGI. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR-584101, TQ/DIST. RAICHUR. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SINDHANUR-584138. TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR. 5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT UTAKANOOR, UTAKANOOR-584138, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR. 6. SMT. KAVERI W/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: EX-PRESIDENT, UTAKANOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. UTAKANOOR-584138. TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR. 7. SRI. BASAVALING NAYAK S/O DEVANNA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRI & PRESIDENT HYDERABAD KARNATAKA PRADESH VALMIKI NAYAK SANGHA, TALUKA GHATAKA MANVI, REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NEAR KANNIKA PARAMESHWARI KALYAN MANTAPA SRI. VALMIKI NILAYA, WARD NO.5,POTHANAL VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; V/O DATED 13.02.2025 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. UÁæC¥À 61 UÁæ¥ÀAC 2023 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ DATED 17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE POST OF PRESIDENT OF UTAKANOOR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR AND ALSO REMOVING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SAID GRAM PANCHAYAT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. II) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF PRESIDENT OF UTAKANOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT UTAKANOOR, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR AND ALSO TO CONTINUE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PETITIONER IN THE UTAKANOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT UTAKANOOR, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST.RAICHUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is disqualified for a period of 6 years from contesting election to the Panchayat under the provisions of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 as per Section 43-A(1)(v), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 2. Petitioner was an elected Member of Utakanoor Gram Panchayat. During that time certain contractual works were awarded in favour of her son by the Utakanoor Gram Panchayat. There were allegations against the petitioner, the then President of Gram Panchayat and also the incharge of Panchayat Development Officer of committing several irregularities regarding the amounts paid to the son of the petitioner herein. On the ground that the enquiry proves that there were lot of irregularities in relation to the work allotted in favour of the son of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed wherein the then President of the Gram Panchayat has been disqualified from contesting the Panchayat election for a period of 6 years, the petitioner is disqualified from contesting to the Panchayat election for a period of 6 years and departmental enquiry is recommended against the then incharge of Panchayat Development Officer. The said order is challenged by the petitioner insofar as it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 relates to she being disqualified from contesting the Panchayat election for a period of 6 years. 3. The impugned order is passed against the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 43-A(1)(v). The said provision reads as under: 43-A. Removal of members.- (1) The Government if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, or otherwise, may remove any member after giving him an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as it deems necessary,- xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (v) in the execution of any work of the panchayat, contractual or otherwise found involved directly with any person who is a nearest relative in the family or otherwise associated in any transaction related to such work as a partner, employee or a member on the Committee of such organization, or otherwise. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, nearest relative in the family means,- (a) the wife or husband of a person residing with her or him; (b) son or daughter or step-son or step- daughter; (c) any other person related, whether by blood or marriage who is wholly dependent on such person; 4. In the instant case, the contract is awarded to the son of the petitioner and he is her nearest relative as contemplated in Section 43-A. However, for her to be disqualified, she should be found directly involved with her son in respect of the work allotted to him by the Panchayat. If the same is not established, than in that event she cannot be disqualified under the said provision merely because her son was allotted the work, even if there are no irregularities in respect of the said works. 5. This is because the provision of disqualification is penal in nature and the petitioner cannot be made liable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 for the culpable acts of her son or other Panchayat members, unless it is found she is directly involved with the affairs of her son in respect of the said contractual work. 6. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order, has come to the conclusion that there were several irregularities committed in respect of the work allotted in favour of the son of the petitioner and payments have been made by the then President of the Panchayat in favour of the son of the petitioner illegally on behalf of the Panchayat. But nowhere, in the impugned order, there is a finding given that petitioner was directly involved in the said contractual work awarded to her son. In the absence of such a finding recorded in the impugned order, the petitioner cannot be disqualified under Section 43-A(1)(v) of the Act, as all the mandatory requirements of Section has not been fulfilled, in this case, petitioner being directly involved in the contractual work awarded to her son. Thus, in my opinion, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3698 WP No. 200344 of 2025 disqualification of the petitioner as per the impugned order will have to be set aside. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) insofar as it relates to disqualifying the petitioner from the current membership/President and from contesting election of the Panchayat for a period of six years is hereby set aside. (ii) However, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of any criminal proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner by the authorities concerned or such other action against her under any provision of law or action against other persons contemplated in the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:SI Page No.8 is retyped and replaced vide Court Order dated 02.09.2025.