Disposed

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandaswamyi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019WP/108345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Tribunal order that allegedly failed to consider the petitioner's submissions. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, granted liberty to file a review application instead of quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file an application for review of the order dated 29.1.2018.

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandasw… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.108345/2019 (S -KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI S.M.SATISHA BABU S/O. SHIVANANDASWAMYI AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIGILANCE CELL, SECRETARIAT WINIG, AGRICLTURE DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI, R/AT: “SRILAKUMI” MANDOLLI ROAD, NEAR LOTUS COUNTY, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-3 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R.4 AND R.5.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.03.2017 PASSED BY THE 1^{S T} RESPONDENT, ARTICLES OF CHARGES DATED 24.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE 5^{T H} RESPONDENT AND ORDR DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NO.723/2018 MARKED AT ANENXURE-A6, A7 & C RESPECTIVELY, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.,.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, Additional

¶27

Government Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶28

The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

¶29

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia assailed the validity of the order dated 29.1.2018, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.723/2018.

¶30

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had raised many a contention before the tribunal, the tribunal has not even taken into account the submissions made

¶31

¶32

before it. In a cryptic and cavalier manner the tribunal has dismissed the application which was filed by the petitioner.

¶33

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another, AIR 1982 SC 1249, has held that if a contention is raised before the Court and the same is not taken note of, appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the Court by filing an application for review.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking review of the order dated 29.1.2018. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an application for review within a period of three weeks from the

¶35

¶36

date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of the principles contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶37

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Mrk/-

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandaswamyi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandaswamyi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Birappa S/O Vithoba Bhanuse Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish S/O Basavanappa Hurukadalli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anand Rao S/O Shamsundar Rao Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O Husanappa Talawar Vs State of Karnataka

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and