- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25576 OF 2025 (LB-ELE) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S. DHANJAYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGAPPA R/AT KUNDURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HONALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT 577219 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560027 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DAVANGARE - 577002 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, HONALLI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577217 5. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT KUNDURU, HONALLI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577219 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA ,ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 BEARING NO. GRAAPA 109 GOS 2024 PASSED BY THE R1 REMOVING FROM BEING MEMBER OF KUNDURU GRAM PANCHAYAT AND ALSO REMOVING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SAID GRAM PANCHAYATH PASSED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Sri. N.R.Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.3 to 5. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objections even before service of notice. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been served on the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 bearing no. graapa 109 gos 2024 passed by the r1 removing from being member of kunduru gram panchayat and also removing the name of the petitioner from the list of members of the said gram panchayath passed by the r1 as per annexure-a. b. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the respondents no.1 and 3 to continue the membership of the petitioner in the kunduru gram panchayath, honalli taluk, davangere district. c. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this hon'ble court, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat Kunduru, Honalli Taluk, Davangere District on 30.12.2020. An allegation was made that the petitioner had demolished the existing Gram Panchayat building. Proceedings were taken up under Section 43 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner had denied his involvement. However, he had explained - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 that their demolition was required on account of the dilapidated status and condition of the said building. An enquiry having been conducted, the enquiry report indicated that the petitioner has admitted his wrongdoing, and on that basis the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 came to be passed by respondent No.1. 6. Sri. Nithyananda K.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there is no admission on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as the explanation given by the petitioner was as regards the dilapidated status of the building and the recommendation made by the Tahsildar, Panchayath Development Officer for demolition. The demolition was required to be taken up, grants had also been made by the Deputy Commissioner for the construction of a new building. 7. His submission is that the demolition was carried out by the other officers and not by the petitioner. On that ground he submits that there being no admission on part of the petitioner. The enquiry report indicates that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner is completely - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 wrong. On that basis, no orders could be passed under Section 43 of the Act, 1993. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has filed objections, would contend that in the enquiry proceedings the petitioner had admitted the wrongdoing and as such, the order came to be passed. On enquiry with Learned AGA as to whether there is any admission in writing, his submission is that there is nothing in writing except the oral admission made during the enquiry proceedings. 9. Heard Sri Nithyananda K. R., learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused papers. 10. The fact of the demolition of the building is not in dispute. The question in the matter is who has demolished the building and whether the said demolition has been carried out by following the due process and procedure. The further fact of the building having been dilapidated is also not in dispute. Notice having been issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had caused a demolition. The petitioner had replied on 27.01.2024, categorically - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 indicating that he had not caused any demolition. It had been done by the other officers. 11. There being a categorical denial in writing, the enquiry officer could not have come to a conclusion that there is an admission on the part of the petitioner. This admission apparently being oral in nature. If at all, a statement of the petitioner ought to have been recorded at that stage to arrive at such a conclusion. 12. In a similar matter in the case of Smt.Usha Mahesh Dasar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.101601/2025 has held that where there is an admission made, there would not be a requirement of a detailed enquiry to be held requiring cross examination. It is only an explanation which can be called for in terms of Section 43 of the Act, 1993. 13. In the present matter, when there is no admission and in fact there is a denial as also there is an allegation made that certain other persons/officers were responsible for the demolition. It is but required for these facts to be - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 established after a complete inquiry, the facts being in dispute. 14. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is required to be set aside and an opportunity provided to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses who have spoken against him as also to lead his own evidence, if he so chooses. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER. i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 16.06.2025 bearing No.GRAAPA 109 GPS 2024 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for conducting a fresh enquiry, permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses/complainant who have spoken against the petitioner and permit the petitioner to lead his own evidence, if he so chooses to. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10307 WP No. 25576 of 2025 iv) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner would cross-examine the concerned witnesses/complainant on the very next day, when the matter is posted, and further that he would not seek for any unnecessary adjournment, is placed on record. v) Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 without requirement of any further notice at 3.00 p.m. on 24.02.2026. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT-RCK