Authorities Can't Pass Orders Solely On Panel Counsel’s Opinion; Legal Advice Can't Replace Decision Making Process: Karnataka High Court
The Court quashed an endorsement passed to escape contempt proceedings, terms such endorsements “aggravated form of contempt”, directs State to issue guidelines to officers.
The Karnataka High Court has held that no administrative or statutory authority can pass orders blindly or solely on the opinion of panel counsel. Such an opinion, the Court said, is only advisory and cannot be the basis or sole reason for a decision, nor can it replace the decision-making process of the competent officer.
The Court quashed an endorsement issued by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Kushtagi, which was passed to show compliance with an earlier High Court order. It observed that such an endorsement, passed in haste to escape contempt proceedings, amounts to an “aggravated form of contempt”. The Bench also directed the Registry to forward the order to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and the Chief Secretary for issuing guidelines to officers.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice T.M. Nadaf observed, “…no administrative or statutory authorities can pass orders blindly or solely based on the opinion of the panel counsel/ advocate…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…It is made clear that the order shall be passed in accordance with the law and not on the advice of the panel counsel/ advocate. The opinions are advisory in nature and cannot be the basis for passing the order.”.
“If an authority blindly copies or signs off the order only on the legal opinion, without examining the facts and relevant law by itself, it amounts to an abdication of statutory power and acting under dictation. Such orders require to be held as arbitrary, invalid and lacking jurisdiction. The authorities are bound under law to consider the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of law applicable to the same and pass orders in terms of law, within the permissible discretion granted in law, as the legal responsibility and statutory duty to pass a reasoned, independent and lawful order solely rests on the shoulders of the deciding authority”, it noted further.
Advocate V.S. Kalasurmath appeared for the petitioner and Sharad V. Magadum, AGA appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, had earlier approached the High Court through a writ, where on February 22, 2023, a Coordinate Bench directed the respondents to consider her representation dated November 22, 2022 in a time-bound manner. The order was not complied with, and she filed Contempt Petition.
The contempt proceedings were dropped after the Panchayat Development Officer, Holgera Gram Panchayat, filed an affidavit with an endorsement dated June 6, 2023, stating that the order had been complied with. Liberty was reserved to challenge the endorsement, which the petitioner did through the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Examining the endorsement, the Court found complete non-application of mind, as the entire order was passed on the opinion of the Taluk Panchayat’s panel counsel. It held that where a statute confers power on an authority, that power must be exercised personally and objectively by that authority alone. An order that merely follows a legal opinion, without examining the facts and law, amounts to abdication of statutory power and acting under dictation, and is arbitrary, invalid and without jurisdiction.
Placing reliance on Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Ors. Civil Appeal No.13919/2024, decided on 05.12.2024, the Court also noted that reasons are the heartbeat of an order. It found that the officer had not applied his mind in terms of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
“All more, the reasons are the heartbeat and soul of the order. In the absence of reasons, the order is just a bunch of dead words, without having any meaning in law…”, the Bench said.
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the endorsement and remanded the matter. The Zilla Panchayat must assign the representation to an officer other than the one who passed the impugned order, and the exercise must be completed within eight weeks. The Court clarified that the order must be passed in accordance with law and not on the advice of panel counsel. All contentions were left open.
Cause Title: Sangamma v. The Manager, Rajiv Gandhi Vasati Abhivrudhi Nigama & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:16824)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate V.S. Kalasurmath.
Respondent: Sharad V. Magadum, AGA, Advocate Vijayakumar Balagerimath.