- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11133 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ANKANAYAKA S/O SOBAGANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS GRAMAPANCHAYAT MEMBER BIDARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYAT SARAGURU TALUK, KANDALIKE HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT-571 121. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD .V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-01. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570 001. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, NEAR LAW COURT CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA MYSURU-570 005. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDARAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYAT SARAGURU TALUK, KANDALIKE HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT-571 121. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE REPORT DATED 07.02.2025 AND VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ON THE GUISE OF THE SAME A NOTICE WAS ISSUED DATED 19.02.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the present writ petition has called in question the second show cause notice dated 19.02.2025 issued by respondent No.1, as per Annexure- B. The petitioner also challenges the recommendations made by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, which have formed the basis for the issuance of the impugned notice by the competent authority under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act, 1993"). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The principal grievance of the petitioner is against the show cause notice issued under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. While the learned AGA, by referring to the impugned notice, contends that the writ petition is premature as the proceedings are only at the stage of contemplation of an enquiry under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of such proceedings is predicated on the recommendations made by the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru Division. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is not only aggrieved by the show cause notice but also by the very recommendations of the Regional Commissioner, which have triggered the initiation of the proceedings in question. 4. On a careful perusal of the provisions contained in Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, this Court is of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 considered view that the power to order removal of a member of a Grama Panchayat is not unfettered and is circumscribed by specific procedural safeguards. The provision mandates that the competent authority, upon verification of the relevant records and if it deems fit either on the recommendation of the Grama Panchayat or suo motu may initiate proceedings for removal of a member. However, such action must necessarily be preceded by affording the member a reasonable opportunity of being heard and must be undertaken only after conducting an enquiry in the manner prescribed under the said provision. The language of Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 clearly contemplates a formal enquiry process, which includes a fact-finding exercise, issuance of notice, consideration of objections, and ultimately, a reasoned decision based on the material on record. 5. In the present case, although the petitioner is aggrieved by the recommendations made by the Regional Commissioner, this Court is of the opinion that such - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 recommendations, by themselves, do not culminate in any adverse order and merely serve as a basis for initiation of proceedings under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. The impugned communication dated 19.02.2025 is only a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to respond to the allegations and participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner, instead of participating in the statutory process, has prematurely approached this Court challenging the very initiation of the enquiry. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of placing on record his objections and contest the proceedings before the competent authority. Mere issuance of a show cause notice, in the absence of any final or conclusive determination, does not give rise to a cause of action warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. 6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this juncture. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27653 WP No. 11133 of 2025 detailed objections and explanation in response to the show cause notice before the competent authority who has initiated the proceedings under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. If such objections are filed within the stipulated time, the said authority shall take the same into consideration and proceed to conduct a enquiry, strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. The authority shall also ensure that principles of natural justice are scrupulously followed and the petitioner is afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before passing any order. Any final decision shall be supported by cogent reasons and shall be passed expeditiously in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14