After the High Court of Karnataka directed the Principal Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department to personally appear before it on December 13 in connection with a case pertaining to Belma Gram Panchayat in Dakshina Kannada, the department has asked the president, vice-president, and 14 members of the panchayat to appear before it for an inquiry on December 4.
The court, in an interim order on November 29, had directed the Principal Secretary to appear with relevant documents and the affidavit showing action initiated against the members of the panchayat who have illegally withheld grant of licence to a resident of the panchayat. In the petition before the court, the resident, Hemanth Shetty, had said that his application for reconstruction of a house was rejected by the panchayat in July 2017 through a resolution by the elected body.
Following this, the department, through a letter on November 30, asked the elected body to appear before the Principal Secretary in Bengaluru for an inquiry at 3 p.m. on Monday. It said that the CEO of Dakshina Kannada ZP (on December 8, 2016) recommended to the government to take action against the elected body for their misconduct in the case. The letter said that in case the elected body fails to appear, unilateral decision will be taken. While the petitioner obtained sanction from Mangaluru Urban Development Authority to reconstruct the house on a site, which was allotted by the government to his father in 1983, the panchayat, in its passed resolution, claimed that licence cannot be granted as the site was cancelled in 1984. The elected body of the panchayat had not obeyed the no-objection given by other authorities for the grant of licence to the petitioner.
Following the resolution, the government in January issued notices to members asking why they should not be removed from their post for alleged misconduct in passing the resolution against grant of licence.
However, they produced a copy of the government order of 1984 cancelling the site allotted to petitioner’s father. Later, the government sought reports from the CEO and DC of Dakshina Kannada. Before the High Court, the government claimed that records of 1984 pertaining to the cancellation of the allotment of the site to petitioner’s father were destroyed by the authorities concerned. However, there was no corroborative material produced to show that site allotment was cancelled.
