Dismissed

Sri. Konda Reddy. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2016WP/27863/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

These writ petitions challenged the non-renewal of surveyor licenses and sought quashing of a 2013 order. The petitioners alleged deliberate failure in their training examinations. The one-judge bench dismissed them, observing that non-licensure was lawful as they failed the exam. It directed authorities to permit fresh examination attempts.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to hold the examination and permit petitioners to take it afresh after fresh application.

Sri. Konda Reddy. v Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.27863-27884 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. Konda Reddy .V, Son of Venkateshareddy, Age: 39 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Kallinayakanahalli Village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gouribedanuru Taluk, Chikkaballapur District 561 208.

¶9

Sri. Govindaraju .V, Son of Venkataramaiah, Age: 45 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Bellarie Village, Pandapura (Taluk), Manikanahalli (Post), Mandya District 571 426.

¶10

Smt. Roopa, Wife of H.T.Suresh, Age: 35 years, Occupation: License Surveyor,

¶11

¶12

Resident of Rakshitha Nilaya, Basaveshwaranagar, 4^th Ward, Dodhaballapur, Bangalore Rural District 561 203.

¶13

R.V.Satheesha, Son of Late Venkategowda, Age: 35 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Hemmanahalli, Murukanahalli-Post, K.R.Pete (Taluk), Mandya District 571 426.

¶14

S.C.Raju, Son of Chanakrishana Gowda, Age: 40 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Shelanerra K.R.Pete (Taluk), Mandya District 571 426.

¶15

Sri. Ravi S.R., Son of Rangaswamy, Age: 40 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Shelanere Village and Post, Shelanere Hobli, K.R.Pete (Taluk), Mandya District 571 426.

¶16

Sri. Anatharamu .G, Son of Govindegowda, Age: 37 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Kamanayakanahalli,

¶17

¶18

Gunaba (Post), Chinakaralli (Hobli), Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District 571 426.

¶19

Sri. Harish M.D., Son of Doddaswamy Gowda, Age: 40 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Mathikere, Ballenahalli (Post), Bushanakere Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District 571 426.

¶20

Sri. Mohankumar .V, Son of Veerabadraiah, Age: 36 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of behind BDA Office, Pavagada Town, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶21

Sri. Jayanna, Son of Hosuraiah, Age: 40 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Banawara, Near Police Quarters, Banawara Post, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District 573 201.

¶22

Ms.Shilpa T.S., Daughter of Sadananda Murthy, Age: 31 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, 2^nd Cross, Bhovi Colony,

¶23

¶24

Gandhinagar, Tiptur, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶25

Sri. K.V.Partha, Son of Venkatappa, Age: 44 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of K.G.Krishnarajapura, T.Begur, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District 562 162.

¶26

Sri. Krishnamurthy .H, Son of Hanumanthappa, Age: 41 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Kanajanahalli Post, Hiriyuru Taluk, Chitradurga District 577 511.

¶27

Sri. H.R.Shekarappa, Son of Rangappa, Age: 39 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Hanumanahalli, Hirenalluru Hobli, Chikkabellikere Post, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamangaluru District 575 001.

¶28

Sri. S.G.Devaraju, Son of Goudaiah, Age: 39 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Brahmana Beedi, Sindagatte Village (Post)

¶29

¶30

K.R.Pete, Mandya District 571 426.

¶31

Sri. K.R.Premkumar, Son of Rajashekaraiah, Age: 39 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Kodinagenahalli, Thyagaturu Post, Nituru Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶32

J.M.Nagaraj, Son of A.G.Maulusidappa, Age: 37 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Ramlaya Road, Jagaluru (Taluk), Davangere District.

¶33

Sri. Jaiprakash K.S., Son of Sannakamanna, Age: 32 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Katavee (post), Kanambella Hobli, Shira Taluk, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶34

Smt. Saraswathi, Wife of Basavaraju, Age: 35 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Hegeri Post, Srirampura Hosadurga (Taluk), Chitradurga District 577 511.

¶35

Sri. Mardi Rangappa, Son of Puttakamaiah,

¶36

¶37

Age: 32 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Chikkatimmanahalli Post, Kanambella Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶38

Nagaraja, Son of Kallujogappa, Age: 31 years, Occupation: License Surveyor, Resident of Chittaganahalli, Kilarihalli Post, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District 561 202.

¶39

Tulasiraju, Son of Siddanna, Age: 32 years, Resident of Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District 577 511.

¶40

…PETITIONERS

¶41

(By Shri M. Babu Rao, Advocate)

¶42

AND:

¶43

State of Karnataka, Represented by it’s Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bangalore 560 001.

¶44

Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, K.R.Circle, Bangalore 560 001.

¶45

¶46

Joint Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, K.R.Circle, Bangalore 560 001.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)

¶49

¶50

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner, i.e., second respondent as per Annexure-L in so far as petitioners are concerned and direct the second respondent to issue the license/renew licenses to the petitioners cancelled on 4.3.2015 in so far as petitioners are concerned.

¶51

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

The petitioners were said to be licensed surveyors whose

¶54

licenses were renewed from time to time. However, in the year

¶55

2014, the petitioners were required to undergo training and they

¶56

were also directed to pay the training fee of Rs.3,000/- . The petitioners had paid the fee and underwent training. And at the

¶57

end of the training, they were required to take the examination.

¶58

¶59

It is stated that out of 52 candidates, 46 had failed and according to the petitioners, it was deliberately done, in order not to renew their licenses.

¶60

This accusation however, is strongly refuted by the

¶61

learned Government Advocate, by contending that to renew the licences, one of the conditions was that the petitioners should pass the examinations and it cannot be said that the respondents have acted unlawfully or irregularly. The petitioners could even now make applications seeking permission to take the examination afresh. The petitioners having already undergone training and not having passed the written examination, it would only require the petitioners to take further written examination and make attempt at passing the same.

¶62

With that observation, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶63

The petitioners would do well to make fresh applications seeking permission to take the examination afresh. The

¶64

¶65

respondents shall hold the examination at the earliest and shall

¶66

permit the petitioners to take the examinations.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

Sri. Konda Reddy. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Konda Reddy. v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mysore Polymers & Rubber Products Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S. Bb Jewellers and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

P Gopal Raju Vs Smt Vimala

Sri M a Fairoze Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagannatha Vs the Secretary

Smt Siddamma Vs State of Karnataka