Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 535
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
B. VEERAPPA, P.G.M. PATIL, JJ.
Kashinath and Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms and Ors - Respondent
W.A. No. 200413 of 2018 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 27-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A. Nagarajappa, Advocate for Manure Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:K.M. Ghate, A.G.A. and Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate
Headnote:
Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act 1993 - Section 4(3)- Claim of writ petitioners - Quash - "Whether appellants have made out a case to interfere with impugned order passed by Single Judge in exercise of power Section High Court - State Government notification has given approval for formation within State of Karnataka - Deputy Commissioner District published a draft notification showing constituted headquarter for group of four villages coming within jurisdiction of newly constituted Village - Village has got facilities and amenities which – Held, Cases where it has interfered with location Headquarter and quashed impugned notifications on ground that Government acted in breach of guidelines in that one place or other was more centrally located or that location at other place would promote general public convenience or that headquarter should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop area surrounded by it location of headquarter by Government by issue of final notification Act was on a consideration by Cabinet Sub-Committee of proposals submitted by Collectors concerned and objections and suggestions received from local authorities like general public- Even assuming that Government while accepting recommendations of Cabinet Sub Committee directed that Headquarter should be at place X rather than place Y as recommended by Collector concerned in a particular case High Court would not have issued a writ in nature of mandamus to enforce guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of writ petitioners - Court ultimately as already stated by us it is for State or its authorities to take particular decision to locate headquarter at particular place and not for Court said judgment is in no way helpful to respondent to arrive at conclusion that suitable headquarter order passed by Single Judge cannot be sustained- Accordingly writ appeal is allowed impugned order passed Single Judge hereby set aside order passed by Regional Commissioner declaring Village as headquarter of group of four villages restored - Ordered accordingly
JUDGMENT :
B. VEERAPPA, J.
1. This Intra Court Appeal is filed against the Order dated 09.03.2018 made in W.P. No. 202411/2017 on the file of the Learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner and declaring Ujani Village as headquarter of the grama panchayat consisting of Ujani, Medpalli, Gandhinagar and Gudapalli Villages. The present respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 202411/2017 for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi made in No. (vide Annexure-J to the writ petition).
I. Facts of the case:
2. It is the case of the petitioners before the Learned Single Judge that the petitioners are permanent residents of Ujani Village, Aurad Taluk of Bidar District. The State Government under notification dated 09.01.2015 has given approval for formation of 439 grama panchayats within the State of Karnataka. The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar District on 19.01.2015 has published a draft notification showing Ujani as newly constituted grama panchayat with Ujani as the headquarter for the group of four villages namely, Ujani, Medapalli, Sunkanalli and Gudapalli coming within the jurisdiction of newly constituted grama panchayat of Ujani Village. Ujani Village has got the facilities and amenities which makes it more convenient, feasible, practicable and eligible for being declared as the headquarter of the newly constituted grama panchayat. It is further contended that after the draft notification, certain objections were received by one Nagashetty and others of Gudapalli Village to make Gudapalli Village as headquarter instead of Ujani. So also one Shivaji and others of Gandhinagar Village sought to include their village in the proposed new grama panchayat with Ujani as headquarter by removing the said village from Chikalli(J) grama panchayat. So also one Arifa Begum President of grama panchayat Chikkali(J) sought to remove Gandhinagar from that panchayat and to include Sunkanalli Village in Chikkali (J) grama panchayat.
3. It is further contented that a committee headed by Tahsildar and CEO taluk panchayat, as secretary and other members considered the said objections and gave their opinion to retain Ujani as headquarter of grama panchayat and to include Ghandhinagar in the proposed Ujani grama panchayat by removing the same from Chikkali (J) grama panchayat and also to delete Sunkanalli Village from the proposed Ujani grama panchayat. The Deputy Commissioner after considering the said report, issued final notification dated 04.02.2015 retaining Ujani as headquarter of grama panchayat and included Gandhinagar Village in the said grama panchayat and has removed the Sunkanalli Village from the said Grama Panchayat and included the same in Chikkali(J) grama panchayat.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the distance from village Ujani to Gandhinagar is 1 km, village Ujani to Medapalli is 1 km, from Ujani to Gudapalli is 4 kms. Village Ujani is centrally located among the four villages. Whereas, Gudapalli is around more than 1 km from Gandhinagar and 4km from Ujani and is not a convenient place for the residents of the other three villages. Since several decades, the villagers of the three villages never had any occasion to visit Gudapalli Village for their political, social or other requirements, whereas the people of Gudapalli, Medapalli, Gandhinagar Villages and other surrounding villages have always been conveniently coming to Ujani to cater to their political and other requirements.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed a revision under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, (for short the 'Act'), before the 2nd respondent-Regional Commissioner. The 2nd respondent even without hearing the members of the affected grama panchayat including the petitioners herein and with
