1 - - WP No.23521/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF SEPTEMBER2016PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH R AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA WRIT PETITION NO.23521/2016 (GM-KLA) ... PETITIONER BETWEEN: MR. UMESH J, S/O NARAYANA POOJARY AGED ABOUT44YEARS EX-PRESIDENT, PRESENTLY MEMBER MOODUSHEDDE GRAMA PANCHAYATH MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE-575 028 D.K.DISTRICT (BY SRI T MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. UPA LOKAYUKTHA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 ADDL. REGISTRAR (ENQUIRY-7) KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 3. (GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) ... RESPONDENTS2- - WP No.23521/2016 WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT OF R-2 DTD.8.2.2016 AT ANNEXURE-E AND TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.16.2.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY R-1 TO THE PETITIONER AS TO WHY HIS MEMBERSHIP SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED AS PER SECTION43A OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1993. WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J.
MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the report of an Upa-Lokayukta dated 08.02.2016 communicated to the Competent Authority under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘the Act’ for short) to initiate action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice dated 16.02.2016 issued to him by the Competent Authority (State Government) pursuant to the aforesaid report.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3. The report impugned herein can’t be said to be without jurisdiction. In our opinion, unless action is taken by the Competent Authority pursuant to the report 3 - - WP No.23521/2016 communicated under Section 12(3) of the Act affecting the petitioner’s legal right, the petitioner can’t be said to be aggrieved of the report. The report impugned herein, by itself, does not affect any legal right of the petitioner. Pursuant to the report, the Competent Authority has only issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him as provided under law. It is appropriate for the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice. At this stage, we find no ground warranting interference in the matter in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE KSR