Disposed

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2019WP/115030/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an excise guard aggrieved by his posting after suspension revocation, directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide his representation on posting distance within one month, considering similarly situated guards.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider petitioner's representation on posting within one month.

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.115030/2019 (S-KAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.M.H.ANAVATI S/O HASANASAB, AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD, ANMOD CHECK POST, JOIDA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT: ANMOD, JOIDA TALUK, U.K. DISTRICT-581301. ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE & EXCISE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BMTC BUS STAND, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-27.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶15

¶16

& DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, U.K. DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT.ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARANATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1254/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petition is admitted for hearing. With

¶23

consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

¶24

In this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short ‘the Tribunal).

¶25

¶26

Facts giving rise to filing of this

¶27

petition briefly stated are that, the petitioner was posted as an Excise Guard on 08.08.2017 at Anmod Check-post and at the relevant time when the petitioner was posted at Anmod checkpost was suspended. Thereupon on 07.12.2018, the petitioner submitted a detailed submission for revocation of order of suspension and vide order dated 25.01.2019, though the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked, yet the petitioner was posted at Bhatkal, which is 350 kms away from the present place of posting. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an original application. The aforesaid application was dismissed by an order dated 06.03.2019.

¶28

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that neither any Act nor any statutory

¶29

¶30

Rule confers the right on the petitioner to remain posted at the place from where he was placed under suspension. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is facing personal difficulties in complying with the order of posting and has been posted at a distance of 350 kms. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3 and similarly situated Excise Guards suspended along with the petitioner even posted at the same place. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that suitable action on the representation which is pending consideration shall be taken in accordance with law.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid submission

¶32

and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation submitted by respondent No.3 by complying the

¶33

¶34

order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to state that the respondent No.3 while deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner shall bear in mind that the similarly situated persons posted with the petitioner have been posted at the same place where they were posted prior to their suspension.

¶35

With the aforesaid directions, the

¶36

petition is disposed of.

¶37

In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

CLK

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.H.Anavati S/O Hasanasab 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankargouda S/O. Siddanagouda Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Haraji S/O Karasan Patel Vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Basappa S/O Shivabasappa Hugar by Lrs Vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Naseema W/O Abdul Mulla Vs the Department of Primary and

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs Guusiddapp Chanabasappa Ghali

The Secretary Vs Basavaraj S/O Fakkirappa Hattimatur