THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUES A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 06.06.2023 BEARING NO.¸ÀAvÁ¥ÀAPÀÄ/ªÀ¸Àw/zÀÆgÀÄ/2023- 24/258 WHICH IS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 2. TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Endorsement issued by respondent No.5 dated 06.06.2023 bearing No.SAMTAPAMKU/ VASATI/DOORU/2023- 24/258 which is produced vide Annexure-A.

2. To grant such other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the Writ Petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard, Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.V.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sharad V.Magadum, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 3, 4 & 6 and Sri.Vijayakumar Balagerimath, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 & 7. Respondent No.1, though served remained unrepresented.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite there being an order by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at the earlier point of time in W.P.No.101242/2023, disposed of on 22.02.2023, directing the respondents to address the grievance of the petitioner and consider the representation dated 22.11.2022 at Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law in a time bound manner, there was no compliance of the order. The same ended in filing Civil Contempt Petition bearing CCC No.100195/2023, which came to be dropped in view of an affidavit filed by accused No.7 PDO, Holgera Gram Panchayat, along with an endorsement stating that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition has been complied with. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner herein to challenge the said endorsement.

4. The photocopy of the impugned endorsement dated 06.06.2023, is extracted hereunder, for easy reference.

5. A perusal of the endorsement dated 06.06.2023, clearly states that there is complete non- application of mind by the concerned officer. The entire order came to be passed on the opinion given by the panel counsel/ advocate of the Taluk Panchayat.

6. It is trite law that, no administrative or statutory authorities can pass orders blindly or solely based on the opinion of the panel counsel/ advocate. As per the well established principles of administrative law and several landmark Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and this Court, the authorities must independently apply their mind and ensure that their decisions are in conformity with the law of the land including the binding judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is further trite law that, when a statute confers a power on the authority to pass an order, that discretion and power must be exercised by the said authority personally and objectively, by that authority alone. The opinions expressed by the panel counsel/ advocate are just advisory in nature and a mean to guide the authority and cannot be a basis or the only reason for the decision. In other words, it cannot replace the decision making process of the competent officer.

8. The reason for application of mind by the authority in respect of case, on the basis of facts and circumstances, is based on the principle that a discretion is vested with the authority to pass orders and the said discretion in law demands application of mind in respect of a case before it and if the same lacks and entirely based on the opinion of somebody else, the decision taken by the author