Allowed

Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr Eswara Prasad

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2020WA/530/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the imposition of Rs.25,000/- cost and disciplinary proceedings imposed by a Single Judge in a previous order. Upon hearing, the respondent expressed willingness to waive the cost recovery. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the cost imposition and the disciplinary direction.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- and the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials are set aside.

Bangalore Development Authority Vs Dr Eswara Prasad — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRs. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.530 OF 2020 (BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶11

DEPUTY SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560 020. … APPELLANTS

¶12

[BY SRI NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE (P)]

¶13

AND

¶14

Dr. ESWARA PRASAD, S/O LATE SANJEEVA CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS GENERAL PHYSICIAN NO.1, C.I.L ‘B’ BLOCK, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU 560 094. … RESPONDENT

¶15

[BY SRI SIDDARTH BABU RAO, ADVOCATE (P)]

¶16

¶17

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASDIE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP.NO.51888/2019 DATED 9.3.2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION INSOFAR AS IMPOSING THE COST OF RS.25,000/- ON BDA/APPELLANTS AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/PHYSICAL HEARING, SANJAY GOWDA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed. However, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellants herein and also by the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials who are responsible for the delay.

¶21

Being aggrieved by that portion of the order of imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- and the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is in appeal.

¶22

On 12.11.2020 we entertained the writ appeal by issuing notice and stayed the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶23

¶24

Today, learned counsel for respondent/writ

¶25

petitioner, on instructions, submits that his client is not keen on recovering the cost of Rs.25,000/- and that portion of the order by which cost had been imposed, may be set aside.

¶26

Accordingly, recording the said statement, the writ appeal is allowed and the order insofar as it relates to imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- and the direction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such of those officials is set aside.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent is permitted to enter appearance by filing a memo within a period of four weeks from today.

¶28

In view of the disposal of the appeal, IAs.1 and 2 of 2020 stand disposed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr Eswara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr Eswara Prasad

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

The Karnataka Housing Board Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. L. Ramareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Yashavanth Vs Smt. D.A. Divya @ Divyasri

Sri T Srinivas Vs Smt B N Latha Devi

Dr.Sadhwini M H Vs Government of Karnataka

Dr Apporva S Reshme Vs Government of Karnataka