- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.18891 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.) AND: 1. MR. P.S. LOKANATH S/O. LATE P.B. SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KADABAGERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 231. RESIDING AT NO.77, I MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, JAGAJEEVANARAMANAGAR BENGALURU-560 018. 2. MR. C.M. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MUGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHIKKABANAWARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 090. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 RESIDING AT NO.48, N.K. FARM NEAR R.V. ENGINEERING COLLEGE DUBASI PALYA, AMMA BAKERY BUILDING KENGERI BENGALURU-560 059. 3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAYAK S. PANDIT, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI B.O. ANIL KUMAR, FOR R-1, & SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2022 IN APPLICATION NOS.1624 AND 1625 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, Sri Vinayak S. Pandit, learned counsel for Sri B.O. Anil Kumar, learned counsel respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, and Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.3- Lokayukta. 2. The State has challenged the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application Nos.1624 and 1625 of 2020, wherein the applications filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 were allowed, the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the petitioner-State was set aside and the State Government was directed to pay all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within the timeframe of three months. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.3- Lokayukta would vehemently contend that the scope of the Tribunal is very limited. The impugned order passed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 Tribunal is without properly appreciating the position of law and erroneously allowed the applications filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is required to be set aside by this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2 would submit that while passing the order, the Tribunal has taken note of the charge levelled against respondent Nos.1 and 2. He would submit that the charge is only partly proved with regard to the preparation of provisional list and the same is taken note by the Tribunal. Further, there is no acceptance of provisional list and the witnesses have admitted that the land of two acres, which is earmarked for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is still in the name of the Government, no allotment of the site is made and no hakkupatra is issued to any of the beneficiaries. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-applicant Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Lokayukta and considering the material on record, the charge against respondent Nos.1 and 2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 is that they prepared the list for allotting the sites under the Ashraya Scheme by receiving the amount and also made ineligible candidates to get the benefits. The Tribunal, while considering the material on record and particularly, taking note of the enquiry report submitted by PW3, Executive Officer, comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partly proved and nothing is placed on record with regard to receiving the amount and making ineligible candidates as beneficiaries. However, it is not in dispute that the provisional list was prepared. In this regard, PW3, Executive Officer, has stated that though the Panchayat Development Officer of K. Gollahalli Grama Panchayat has sent the list of the beneficiaries to his Office of the Taluk Panchayat, but the same was returned back as it was not in accordance with the guidelines. As per the guidelines, only women are the beneficiaries, however, there were names of male beneficiaries. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the preparation of beneficiaries list under Ashraya Scheme will be done in the Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat and the Members of the Grama Panchayat will make selection list of the beneficiaries. He further admitted that for preparation of the beneficiaries list - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 under the Ashraya Scheme, there is no power for the Panchayat Secretary or the Panchayat Development Officer of the said Panchayat. 6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the oral evidence led by PW1 to PW3 itself goes to show that there is no preparation of the final selection list in this case and provisional list was prepared and it was prepared by the Members of the Grama Panchayat in the Grama Sabha and the same was forwarded to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, but he has not finalised the same and returned it back. Witnesses admitted that the said land of two acres, which is earmarked for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme is still in the name of the Government and no allotment of the site was made and no hakkupatra was issued to any of the beneficiaries. Therefore, these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer in his report and only on the basis of evidence of witnesses in the examination-in-chief, he has come to the conclusion that the charges against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partly proved. The Enquiry Officer specifically held in his report regarding the allegations that respondent Nos.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 and 2, by receiving the amount from some of the beneficiaries, have prepared the list containing their names illegally as beneficiaries is not proved. Therefore, under those circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order. 7. When it is the clear admission of PW3, Executive Officer, that the preparation of beneficiaries list under the Ashraya Scheme is made by the Grama Sabha of the Grama Panchayat, the Members of the Grama Panchayat will make the selection list of the beneficiaries and thereafter, the said list will be notified in the General Body Meeting and the same will be finalised, the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State that the Tribunal ought not to have exercised the judicial review cannot be accepted. Hence, no grounds are made out by the petitioner-State to set aside the order of the Tribunal and the same is considered assessing the material on record. 8. As per the guidelines, the names of only women beneficiaries were supposed to be sent, however, the names of male beneficiaries were sent and the same was returned. Even - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8407-DB WP No. 18891 of 2023 though the list will be prepared by the Grama Panchayat members, it is the duty of the Panchayat Development Officer to verify, however, the same is not done in this case. It is dereliction of duty on the part of the Panchayat Development Officer. Hence, the concerned Panchayat Development Officer is warned not to indulge in any such act in future while discharging his duties even while preparing the provisional list. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16