: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION NO.104439/2015 & WP NOS.107609-611/2015 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. KRISTAGOUDA VENKANAGOUDA HULKOTI, AGE: 72 YEARS,OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORK, R/O: CHILKAWAD VILLAGE, TQ:NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

2. VILASRADDI RAMRADDI KONRADDI, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORK, R/O: CHILKAWAD VILLAGE, TQ:NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

3. NINGANGOUDA RAMANGOUDA PATIL, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORK, R/O: CHILKAWAD VILLAGE, TQ:NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.

4. NINGAPPA MALLAPPA , AGE:70 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORK, R/O: CHILKAWAD VILLAGE, TQ:NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. B V SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) : 2 :

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

3. THE REGIIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.

4. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K. S. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3; SMT. K. VIDYAVATHI, ADV. FOR R4) -- THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 13.02.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI DATED 08.04.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent

Nos.1 to 3. : 3 :

Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioners, who are the residents of Chilkawad village filed these writ petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 13.02.2015 passed by the State Government, order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

Belagavi Division, Belagavi and the notification dated 04.03.2015, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, vide Annexures, A,

B and C, respectively, and to confirm the draft notification dated

19.01.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-D, directing the respondents to continue Chiklawad village as head quarters of the gram panchayat consisting of Chiklawad, ,

Nagarhalli and Kumargoppa villages of Navalgund taluk.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the State Government has formed a Committee for formation of new Gram Panchayats and division of existing gram panchayat. The said Committee, after enquiry and receiving the suggestions, information and documents from the public, has submitted a report and thereby recommended : 4 : to form 439 new Gram Panchayats in Karnataka. The draft notification was also published on 19.01.2015 for formation of 3 new gram panchayats in Navalgund taluk. In the said notification,

Chilkawad village was shown as the head quarters of gram panchayat consisting of Chilakawad, Belahar, and Kumargoppa villages.

4. Thereafter, the respondents published final notification in respect of formation of new gram panchayats, Navalgund taluka on

04.02.2015, changing the head quarters of gram panchayat from

Chilakwad village to Belahar village. After coming to know the change of head quarters, the petitioners and others have filed objections on 24.02.2015. In spite of the objections filed by the petitioners and other villagers, without giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the final notification is issued on 04.03.2015 vide

Annexure-C, declaring Belahar as the head quarter of new gram panchayat at Chilkawad village consisting of Chilkawad, Belahar,

Nagarhalli and Kumargoppa villages. Aggrieved by the said notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 04.03.2015, the : 5 : petitioners filed a revision petition before the Regional

Commissioner under the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Karnataka

Panchayat Raj Act. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 07.04.2015, the Regional Commissioner dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner. Hence the present writ petitions are filed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

6. Sri. Somapur, learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the change of head quarters of gram panchayat from Chilkawad to Belahar village is erroneous, illegal and arbitrary. The respondents have not considered the objections filed by the villagers and not applied the judicious mind in changing the head quarter from Chilkawad to Belahar by issuing the impugned notification dated 04.03.2015. He also contended that Chilakwad village is nearer to taluk place and N.H.4, it is having well furnished building of gram panchayat and having Govt. P.U. College, Govt.

High School, Co-operative Society and other facilities, whereas

Belahar village has no such facilities. He contended that the : 6 : respondents 2 and 3 have not given an opportunity to the petitioners and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 and

3 are liable to be quashed. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petitions.

7. Per contra, Sri. K. S. Patil, learned HCGP for respondents

1 to 3 and Smt. K. Vidyavathi, learned Counsel for the respondent

No.4 sought to justify the impugned action by the respondents.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record.

9. The State Government has issued notification on

13.02.2015 to establish the new Gram Panchayats in Navalagund

Taluk of and in the said notification, the head quarter of gram panchayat is changed from Chilkawad to Belahar village. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated

04.03.2015 at Annexure ‘C’, changed the head quarter as per the notification and published the same in the official gazatte. : 7 :

Aggrieved the by said order of the Deputy Commissioner changing the head quarter, the petitioners and others filed a revision before the Regional Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties, by its impugned order dated 07.04.2015, dismissed the revision petition and specifically recorded a finding that Belahar is only 2 kms away from Chilkawad and 3 kms away from village; Belahar village is the centre place for Chilkawad and Nagarahalli; and the

Belahar village is having primary health centre and it is the best place to be the head quarters in the public interest. The Regional

Commissioner has also recorded a finding that the Belahar village is developed with all the basic facilities and therefore, the said place is suitable for the purpose of head quarter of Gram Panchayats, accordingly, rejected the revision petition.

10. The Regional Commissioner has rejected the revision petition exercising the power under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka

Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and the same is in accordance with law.

This Court cannot investigate or reassess the finding recorded by the authorities below who are the competent authorities. Therefore, the : 8 : petitioners have not made out any ground for interference by this

Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. This Court while considering the provisions of Section

4(3) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, in the case of

Chickamuniswamy and another vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 1994 (4) Kar. L.J. 662 , held that revision powers of the Commissioner are as wide as the original authority and the question of interference under Article 226 cannot be adjudicated by the High Court, unless the order is vitiated either by error of statutory law or constitutional law.

12. In an identical circumstance, this Court in the case of

Raghuvir vs. The State of Karnataka made in W.P. No.103636-

103638/2015 dated 01.07.2015 held that declaration made by the

Deputy Commissioner confirmed by the Regional Commissioner cannot be interfered by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India. : 9 :

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Zila Parishads, Taluk

Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act,

1983in the case of B.N.Shankarappa vs. Uthanur Srinivas and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 836 held at paragraphs 7 and 8 as under:

“7. As pointed out earlier, Section 4(1) empowers the Deputy Commissioner to do two things, namely, (i) to declare an area as a Mandal, and (ii) to specify its headquarter. The word `also' preceding the words `specify its headquarter' cannot be understood to convey that the power once exercised would stand exhausted. Such a construction sought to be placed by counsel for the respondent does not accord with the language of the provision. It merely conveys that when the Deputy Commissioner constitutes a Mandal for the first time it will be necessary for him to specify its headquarter also. This power to specify the headquarter conferred on the Deputy Commissioner can be exercised from time to time as occasion requires by virtue of Section 14 of the General Clauses Act. The attention of the High Court was not drawn to the provision in Section 14 when it disposed of the Writ Appeal No. 2564 of 1987 and Writ Petition No 375 of 1989 on 28th May, 1991. It is true that the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 can be exercised where there is a change in the area of the Mandal either by addition or reduction in the area. Under : 10 : clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 the Deputy Commissioner is also invested with the power to alter the name of any Mandal. The scheme of subsection (2) would, therefore, show that when there is any increase or decrease in the area of any Mandal, the Deputy Commissioner may, after the previous publication of the proposal by notification, exercise that power and rename the Mandal, if so required. The absence of the power in sub-section (2) of section 4 to specify the headquarter afresh does not necessarily mean that once the initial constitution of the Mandal takes place and the headquarter is specified the power is exhausted, notwithstanding section 14 of the General Clauses Act. If such an interpretation is placed on the scheme of section 4 of the Act neither the Deputy Commissioner nor any other authority will thereafter be able to alter and specify any other place as the Mandal's headquarter. Such a view would create a vacuum and even when a genuine need for specifying any other headquarter arises, the authorities will not be able to exercise power for want of a specific provision in the Act and that may lead to avoidable hardship and complications. It is, therefore, essential that we read the provision of the Act in a manner so as to ensure that such a vacuum does not arise and the power is retained in the concerned authority which can be exercised should a genuine need arise. In J.R. Raghupathy & Ors. v. State of A.P. others , [1988] 4 SCC 364 : (AIR 1988 SC 1681), this : 11 :

Court observed that the ultimate decision as 294 to the place or location of Mandal headquarter is left to the Government to decide and conferment of discretion upon the concerned authority in that behalf must necessarily leave the choice to the discretion of the said authority and it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised. This is not to say that the discretion can be exercised in an arbitrary or whimsical manner without proper application of mind or for ulterior or malafide purpose. If it is shown that the discretion was so exercised it would certainly be open to the Courts to interfere with the discretion but not otherwise.

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the situation so demands and there is justification for altering the place of headquarter, it would be open to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise power under Section 4(1) of the Act read with section 14 of the General Clauses Act to meet the situation. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High court and restore the order of the learned Single Judge directing that the writ petition, which gave rise to the writ appeal, shall stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.” : 12 :

14. Considering the entire material on record and the law declared by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Deputy

Commissioner, who is the competent Authority, has declared

Belahar village as a new head quarter and the same is confirmed by the Regional Commissioner based on the cogent legal material on record. The petitioners have not made out any case for interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

The learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Sd/- JUDGE gab