Writ Petition by Gram Panchayat for protection of public property maintainable: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226, moved a Gram Panchayat in furtherance of its objective and protection of public property is maintainable [Harish v. President, Sagara Gram Panchayat and others].Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Village Panchayat, Calangute v. Director of Panchayat to hold that the claim against maintainability of a writ petition filed by a Gram Panchayat cannot be accepted."The question that arose before the Apex Court was whether a writ petition by a Gram Panchayat calling in question the order passed by the Executive Officer was maintainable or otherwise. The contentions were that the writ petition was not maintainable and the contra contention was that it was. The Apex Court after considering the amendment to the Constitution empowering Gram Panchayats, has declared that a writ petition in certain circumstances by the Gram Panchayat challenging the order of the Executive Officer would be maintainable. Therefore, the threshold bar that the petitioner/claimant seeks to contend is unacceptable and I hold the writ petition to be maintainable," the High Court held..The Court was hearing a two writ petitions in relation to a property. The first was filed by one V Harish who had claimed that the property belonged to his mother but despite the order of the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat was refusing to register/re-enter khata in his name.The second petition was filed by the Krishnarajasagar Gram Panchayat challenging the order of the Executive Officer which directed registration of khata in favour of the petitioner.Harish questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat stating that a Gram Panchayat cannot challenge the order of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat passed under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, as the Gram Panchayat cannot be construed to be a person aggrieved..The Gram Panchayat on the other hand, submitted that the order passed by the Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat lacked reasons and was passed without application of mind. .The Court first addressed the contention as regards the maintainability of the petition in the light of the 73rd amendment to the Constitution of India introduced in 1992 and various Articles that empowered the panchayat.In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Village Panchayat, Calangute v. Director of Panchayat to hold that writ petition in certain circumstances by the Gram Panchayat challenging am order of the Executive Officer, would be maintainable. The Court then proceeded to uphold the contention of the Gram Panchayat that the Executive Officer failed to apply his mind while passing the order."The order displays blatant non-application of mind. There is no consideration of either the case of the petitioner/claimant or the respondent - Gram Panchayat," said the Court..The Court further said that a quasi-judicial authority determining the rights of parties should always specify reasons while passing an order. "It is trite law that an order passed by a quasi judicial authority determining the rights of the parties should contain reasons, as reasons would reflect application of mind. In an era where even administrative orders cannot be bereft of reasons, it can hardly be justifiable, if orders of quasi judicial authorities are cryptic, bald or laconic.".In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition moved by Harish and allowed the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat. It remitted the matter to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat to re-determine the entire issue and pass appropriate orders, after proper application of mind.[Read Order]