An officer who signs an order only because a lawyer has advised it has not really decided anything, the Karnataka High Court has indicated, quashing an endorsement passed blindly on a panel counsel opinion and observing that it appeared to have been issued in haste “to save their skin” from contempt proceedings.
Dharwad: An endorsement on which a contempt case had been dropped has been set aside by the Karnataka High Court, which held that administrative and statutory authorities cannot pass orders blindly or solely on the opinion of a panel counsel; the endorsement of the Executive Officer of the Kushtagi Taluk Panchayat rested entirely on the panel advocate’s advice [Smt. Sangamma v. The Manager, Rajiv Gandhi Vasati Abhivrudhi Nigama and Others].
Justice T.M. Nadaf, sitting at the Dharwad Bench, allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Sangamma, a resident of Chalageri in Kushtagi taluk, Koppal district, in an oral order dated October 9, 2026, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different officer.
Fresh consideration, by another officer
As the contempt proceedings had already been dropped, the Court quashed the endorsement and remanded the representation for consideration in accordance with law and the coordinate bench’s order of February 22, 2023. It directed:
- The Zilla Panchayat to assign the representation to an officer other than the one who passed the impugned endorsement, if he still holds the post; if he has been transferred, to the present incumbent.
- The exercise to be completed within eight weeks, with the order to be passed in accordance with law “and not on the advice of the panel counsel/ advocate”.
- A compliance report to be filed before the Court.
- The Registry to send a copy of the order to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, and the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for issuing guidelines to officers to pass orders by applying their mind and not on the opinion of panel counsel.
All contentions of the parties were left open.
“Complete non-application of mind”
On a perusal of the endorsement, the Court found that it showed “complete non-application of mind by the concerned officer” and that the entire order had been passed on the opinion given by the panel counsel of the Taluk Panchayat. It held:
“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.”
An authority that blindly copies or signs off an order only on a legal opinion, without examining the facts and the law itself, commits an “abdication of statutory power and acting under dictation”, the Court said, and such orders must be held “arbitrary, invalid and lacking jurisdiction”.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s December 2024 ruling in Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, the Court added:
“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.”
Turning to the officer’s conduct, the Court found that the officer had not applied his mind in terms of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and observed:
“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.”
How the matter came back to the Court
A coordinate bench had disposed of the petitioner’s earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 101242 of 2023) on February 22, 2023, directing the authorities to consider her representation dated November 22, 2022 and pass orders in a time-bound manner. When that was not complied with, she filed a civil contempt petition (CCC No. 100195 of 2023). The contempt case was dropped after the Panchayat Development Officer of Holgera Gram Panchayat filed an affidavit with an endorsement dated June 6, 2023 stating that the order had been complied with, while liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge that endorsement.
The petitioner challenged the June 6, 2023 endorsement issued by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kushtagi.
Why the order matters
Government departments and local bodies routinely seek legal opinions before deciding citizens’ claims. This order draws a firm line: the opinion may guide, but the decision and the reasons must be the authority’s own. By flagging endorsements issued merely to close contempt cases, and by sending the order to the Chief Secretary for guidelines, the Court has signalled that paper compliance with writ directions will not be accepted, and that orders without independent reasons are open to being struck down.
Case Title: Smt. Sangamma v. The Manager, Rajiv Gandhi Vasati Abhivrudhi Nigama and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 107917 of 2023 (LB-UC); NC: 2026:KHC-D:16824
Bench: Justice T.M. Nadaf, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Advocate V.S. Kalasurmath for Advocate M.V. Hiremath for the petitioner; Additional Government Advocate Sharad V. Magadum for respondents 3, 4 and 6; Advocate Vijaykumar Balagerimath for respondents 5 and 7