IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.45313 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O. LATE SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS LINGAYAT BY CASTE HOUSE WIFE AND FARMER R/AT KORATIKERE VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE, M.S. BUILDINGS DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT OF RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED FOR DISTRIBUTION OF COMPENSATION FOR SUICIDES HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MEMBER OF RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527, 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE MEMBER-SECRETARY RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
5. THE TAHASILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK AND MEMBER OF RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HOSADURGA POLICE STATION HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
7. THE SECRETARY PRIMARY LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK HOSADURGA, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
8. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HOSADURGA, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
9. THE MANAGER PRAGATI GRAMEENA BANK M.G.DIBBA, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, A.G.A. FOR R1-R6;
R7 & R9 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O.DT:18.06.2015) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH, SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION/DECISION DATED 06.08.2007 AT ANNX-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS/COMMITTEE FORMED FOR DECIDING AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR SUICIDE COMMITTED DUE TO AGRICULTURAL INDEBTEDNESS OF A FARMER BY ISSUING/ORDERING WITHIN THE NATURE OF ‘CERTIORARI’ ANDETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the resolution/decision dated 06.08.2017 passed by the respondent, by which the claim made by the petitioner, who is a widow of the deceased farmer has been rejected.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a notice dated 10.09.2005 was issued by the respondent No.7-Bank to the husband of the petitioner, by which he was asked to clear the outstanding loan amount due. In that regard, the Officers of the Bank visited the house of the petitioner on 10.06.2007 and issued instructions for payment of the loan amount due. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband committed suicide on 16.07.2007. It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Recommendation Committee while rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 06.08.2007.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 has supported the order passed by the Recommendation Committee.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. From a perusal of the order passed by the Recommendation Committee, it is evident that certain vital aspects, which have material bearing on the controversy involved in the instant writ petition have not been considered by the Recommendation Committee while passing the impugned order dated 06.08.2007.
8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.08.2007 is quashed. The petitioner is granted the liberty to submit a fresh representation to the Recommendation Committee with regard to her grievance and the aforesaid authority is directed to decide the same afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST