- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO. 100746 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MAHALAKSHMI W/O. LATE K.H. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY, AGE 39 YEARS, OCC. ANGANAWADI WORKER, R/O: MAHARUDRAGOUDANA STREET, SANDUR, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, NOW R/AT: KUREKOPPA ANGANWADI CENTRE-5 KUREKOPPA VILLAGE, TAL. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583119. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.S.HARAVI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, SANDUR, TALUK. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.) Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 10:07:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.106868/2014 DATED 10.11.2023 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Heard Sri M.S.Haravi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Sharad V. Magadu, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents. 2. Unsuccessful petitioner before the learned single Judge is before this court in this intra-Court appeal, questioning the order dated 10.11.2023, in W.P.No.106868/2014 (GM-RES) passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition refusing to quash the order dated 24.06.2014 (Annexure-A), cancelling the residential certificate of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 3. Learned counsel for appellant Sri M.S.Haravi mainly contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner before cancelling the residential certificate vide proceedings dated 24.06.2014. Further, he contends that since no notice was issued to the petitioner, petitioner had no opportunity to participate in proceedings and to place on record the relevant documents. It is submitted that on the death of husband of the petitioner, she was residing at her parents’ house at Basapur. He submits that the petitioner is a resident of Kurekoppa village of Toranagal Hobli. As such, he prays for allowing the writ petition by allowing this appeal. 4. On the other hand, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the order passed by the learned single Judge and further submits that for different benefits the petitioner has given different addresses of different village. Thus, he further brings to the notice to the Court that notice was issued to the petitioner before cancelling the residential certificate, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 which is clear from the proceedings dated 24.06.2014. Thus, he prays for dismissing the writ appeal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order under appeal warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 6. The answer to the above point would be in the ‘negative’ for the following: REASONS 7. The petitioner had applied for the post of Anganawadi Worker enclosing residential certificate dated 23.12.2013 to establish that she is the resident of Kurekoppa village of Torangal Hobli. On the strength of the said residential certificate, the petitioner was appointed on 18.08.2012 as Anganawadi Worker to Kurekoppa Anganawadi Center. Strangely on 18.09.2012, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 petitioner obtained one more residential certificate, stating that she is a resident of Basapur village. The learned single Judge on examining the material on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had tried to misuse the facilities given by the Government, which needs no interference. Learned single Judge’s order would also indicate that the petitioner had obtained false representation/obtained certificates of residence in different places with a view to obtain employment. It also reveals that the petitioner was issued show cause notice. Further the impugned order of cancellation dated 24.06.2014 (Annexure-K) clearly indicates that notice was issued to the appellant and respondents; on 05.05.2014 recorded the statements of the persons who attended. 8. In the above said circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly the appeal stands rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18328-DB WA No. 100746 of 2023 9. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE MRK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28