The Karnataka High Court has ruled that administrative authorities cannot pass orders solely on the legal opinion of their panel advocates without independently examining the facts and applicable law. Justice T. M. Nadaf quashed an endorsement issued by the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Kushtagi, and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner’s representation.
Background
The case arose from a representation submitted by Sangamma, who had earlier approached the High Court seeking consideration of her grievance. On February 22, 2023, a coordinate bench directed the authorities to consider her representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Following alleged non-compliance, Sangamma initiated contempt proceedings. These proceedings were subsequently dropped after the Panchayat Development Officer filed an affidavit and an endorsement claiming compliance. Sangamma then challenged the endorsement dated June 6, 2023.
The Court examined the endorsement and found that the concerned officer had relied on the opinion of the Taluk Panchayat’s panel advocate without independently applying his mind.
The Court observed:
"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."
Emphasising the importance of independent decision-making, Justice Nadaf held that statutory authorities must exercise their powers personally and objectively rather than merely follow legal advice.
The Court further observed:
"If an authority blindly copies or signs off the order only on the legal opinion, without examining the facts and relevant law by itself, it amounts to an abdication of statutory power and acting under dictation."
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, the Court also stressed that administrative orders must contain reasons explaining the decision.
The High Court quashed the impugned endorsement and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the Zilla Panchayat to assign the representation to another officer, if the original officer remained in the same position, and complete the exercise within eight weeks.
The Court clarified that the fresh decision must be based on law and independent consideration, not merely on the panel advocate’s opinion.
It also directed that a copy of the order be sent to senior Karnataka government officials for issuing appropriate guidelines.
Case Details
Case Title: Sangamma v. Manager, Rajiv Gandhi Vasati Abhivrudhi Nigama & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 107917 of 2023 (LB-UC)
Judge: Justice T. M. Nadaf
Decision Date: October 9, 2026
