IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 48900 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UPPUNDA GRAM PANCHAYATH, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576232 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YOGESH KUMAR U S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, NEAR 3^RD GATE, BENGALURU-01 Digitally signed by

2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SUMA Location: KUNDAPUR TALUK PANCHAYATH, HIGH SHASTHRI CIRCLE, KUNDAPURA-576201 COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. SMT. SUNANDA @ VANITHA PRABHU W/O SRI. B. PANDURANGA PRABHU, MAHAMAYA, AMBAGILU, UPPUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK-576232 (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2018 IN CASE NO.KA.NI.A.NYA/APPEAL-01/2018-19/208/24-9-2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No.2 in case No.PÁ.¤.C.£Áå/C¦Ã®Ä-01/2018-19 dated

15.09.2018 filed by respondent No.3.

2. Respondent No.3 sought a No-objection Certificate (henceforth referred to as ‘NOC’ for short) from the panchayath for providing electricity to a commercial building. Since a notice was issued to respondent No.3 to stop the construction activities, the No-objection Certificate sought for was not granted. Respondent No.3 challenged the same before respondent No.2, who allowed the appeal in terms of the impugned order dated 15.09.2018. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. When this Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a Panchayath Development Officer, has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by respondent No.2 as it is only the panchayath, if it is aggrieved, which is entitled to challenge and that too only after passing a resolution, the learned counsel was all at sea and was not able to respond to the query put by the Court.

4. The petitioner is not the panchayath and no resolution is passed by the panchayath to challenge the order passed by respondent No.2. In the absence of the above, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by respondent No.2 as he is only a servant of the panchayath and has to execute the orders passed by the panchayath and he cannot usurp the role and power of a panchayath to challenge the order passed by respondent No.2.

5. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44