Authorities must independently decide statutory matters, not act solely on panel counsel’s opinion.

The petitioner had earlier obtained an order directing the authorities to consider her representation dated 22 November 2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

After contempt proceedings were initiated, the Panchayat Development Officer filed an affidavit stating that the direction had been complied with and produced an endorsement dated 6 June 2023.

The contempt proceedings were dropped, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement.

The petitioner then challenged that endorsement in this writ petition.

An authority exercising statutory discretion must independently and objectively consider the facts and applicable law; it cannot abdicate its decision-making responsibility by relying solely on a panel counsel’s opinion, which is advisory.

An administrative or quasi-judicial order must disclose reasons.

The Court relied on Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Others, Civil Appeal No. 13919 of 2024, decided 5 December 2024, for the principles that reasons are essential to an order and that procedural fairness requires an opportunity to respond to material relied upon before an adverse decision.

The Court also referred to the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, without identifying a specific provision.

The Court found that the endorsement did not reflect the officer’s independent consideration of the petitioner’s grievance and had been made on the basis of the Taluk Panchayat panel counsel’s opinion.

Applying the principles of independent statutory decision-making and reasoned orders, it held that reliance on that opinion could not substitute for the officer’s own assessment of the facts and law.

The endorsement therefore could not stand, and fresh consideration by an officer other than its author was required.

The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with the earlier order in W.P. No. 101242 of 2023.

The Zilla Panchayat was directed, if the officer who issued the endorsement remained in office, to assign the matter to another officer; the exercise was to be completed within eight weeks.

The Court directed that the decision be made in accordance with law and not solely on the panel counsel’s advice, and left the parties’ contentions open.

The order also directed the Registry to send a copy to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for issuing appropriate guidelines.