A NARAYANAPPA S/O. ASHWATHAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question the order passed by respondent No. 3 - Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Pavagada, dated 10.05.2012 produced at Annexure 'H' and also endorsement dated 1505.2012 issued by respondent No. 4 - Secretary, Virupasamudra Grama Panchayat produced at Annexure 'J'. Petitioner claims that, he was working as a Scavenger in respondent No. 4. By resolution dated 27.07.2010 passed by the Grama Panchayat, he was promoted to the post of Bill Collector. However, respondent No. 6 had filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 40464/2011. this Court noticed that the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat is an appealable order under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition with liberty. Thereafter, it appears that, respondent No. 6 filed a representation/appeal before the Taluka Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat by the impugned order dated 10.05.2012 produced at Annexure 'H' has held that, there is no transparency in the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Bill Collector in the Grama Panchayat and in this regard, has called for a report. Grama Panchayat, in pursuance of the same, has issued endorsement dated 15.05.2012 as per Annexure 'J'.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for/the petitioner submits that, the Taluka panchayat has no jurisdiction under Section 269 of the Act to issue such a communication. He also submitted that, there is no appeal filed by respondent No. 6 before the Zilla Panchayat in terms of Section 113(4) of the Act.

(3.) NO doubt, respondent No. 6 has filed a representation/appeal before the Taluka Panchayat. However, the Taluka Panchayat before passing an order, should have heard the petitioner and passed an appropriate order. It has directly issued a communication to respondent No. 4 to annul the appointment of the petitioner. As such, in my opinion, if it is a statutory appeal, before passing any order, the appellate authority should have issued notice to the person likely to be aggrieved by the order to be passed by it. Hence, it is suffice to quash the impugned communications at Annexures 'H' and 'J' and direct the Taluk Panchayat - respondent No. 3 to issue notice to the petitioner and hear him on the basis of the appeal stated to have been filed by respondent No. 6.