Consequently, Justice T.M. Nadaf quashed an endorsement passes in a “haste” to evade contempt proceedings, while allowing the petition seeking to challenging the impugned order dated June 6, 2023, issued by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Kushtagi.

“It is trite law that, no administrative or statutory authorities can pass orders blindly or solely based on the opinion of the panel counsel/ advocate. As per the well established principles of administrative law and several landmark Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court, the authorities must independently apply their mind and ensure that their decisions are in conformity with the law of the land including the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.

It further added, “It is further trite law that, when a statute confers a power on the authority to pass an order, that discretion and power must be exercised by the said authority personally and objectively, by that authority alone. 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.”

The Court observed that of an authority “blindly” signs off an order solely based on the legal opinion, without examining the facts and law by itself, it would amount to “abdication of statutory power and acting under dictation”. Such orders are arbitrary, invalid and passed without jurisdiction, it held.

“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 Court observed.

The dispute arose from earlier proceedings wherein a coordinate bench of the High Court on February 22, 2023 directed authorities to address the petitioner's grievance and consider her representation. Due to non-compliance with the Coordinate Bench's order, the petitioner filed a civil contempt petition. The contempt proceedings were subsequently dropped after the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) filed an affidavit along with the impugned endorsement, claiming compliance.

In the case at hand, the Court noted that the officer passed the endorsement solely on the legal advice and said, “the Officer has not at all applied his mind in terms of law as per the provisions of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It appears, the order came to be passed in a haste, only to absolve themselves from the contempt proceedings and to save their skin. These kinds of endorsements amount to aggravated form of contempt.”

Accordingly, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Zilla Panchayat to assign the petitioner's representation to a different officer, who shall decide the matter within eight weeks.