Dismissed

Sri H Krishnappa v. the Deputy Registrar of

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2021WP/12003/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-day preliminary hearing in a writ petition challenging an order refusing interim stay in an appeal against removal. The court observed that the removal was due to non-compliance with age limits and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit while directing the lower body to decide the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the learned Deputy Registrar is directed to dispose of the subject appeal within three months.

Sri H Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Registrar of — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.12003 OF 2021 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLA HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 116, (PRESIDENT OF VENGASANDARA MILK PRODUCERS CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LOKESH K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLAR, ABOVE DCC BANK, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶13

2 . ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, ABOVE DCC BANK, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶14

3 . SRI. H. NAGAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶15

4 . SRI. H. MANJUNATHA, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶16

5 . SRI. M. NARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

6 . SRI. K.R. MANJUNATH, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA @ RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

7 . SRI. BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE GNAGULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶20

8 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA, S/O MUNISHAMI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶21

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT VENGASANDRA VILLAGE, KYSAMBALLA HOBLI, KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 116.

¶22

9 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION , M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R-1, 2 & 9; SRI. VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R8)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2021, PASSED BY THE R1, ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IN CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioner, the appellant in DRK Appeal - V/04/2021-22

¶30

is knocking at the doors of Writ Court to the order dated 29.06.2021 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby his application for the interim stay of punitive order dated 21.06.2021 has been negatived, keeping the said appeal pending.

¶31

After service of notice, the official respondent Nos. 1,2 & 9 are represented by the learned AGA; private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are represented by their counsel; both the learned AGA and the private counsel vehemently oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶33

a) Petitioner happen to be the President of Vegasandra Milk Producers Cooperative Society; despite written instructions, he had continued one Mr. Kodanda Ram as the Secretary of the Society even after the said person had attained the age of 66 years, the age of retirement as

¶34

¶35

prescribed by the extant bye laws admittedly being 60 years; it has been a settled position in Service Jurisprudence that, right of lien to the post comes to an end with he attaining the age of superannuation and that he cannot be continued in the absence of enabling provision; no such provision is pointed out in this case; in " Services Under the State ", by Justice Rama Jois, 2007 Edition, indian law institute at page 306, writes that " an employee has no right to continue in the employment after attaining the age of superannuation "; there fore, petitioner has been removed from the Directorship of the Managing Committee vide order dated 21.06.2021.

¶36

b) It has been a settled position of law that an appellant

¶37

can be granted interim relief such as stay of the order impugned in the appeal, if a prima facie case is made out and denial of interim relief would put him to enormous prejudice which cannot be compensated; whether an interim relief should be granted or not, is ordinarily a matter of discretion; the appellate authority having exercised the said discretion in accordance with rules of reason & justice, has refused to stay

¶38

the Termination Order that is put in appeal; such discretionary orders do not merit a deeper examination at the

¶39

¶40

hands of this Court vide SADHANA LODDH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER, AIR (2003) 3 SC 524 .

¶41

In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly is dismissed. However, the first respondent is requested to hear & dispose off petitioner's subject appeal within a period of three months.

¶42

The observations hereinabove made being confined to disposal of the writ petition, shall not influence the decision making in the appeal.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

DS/GRD/Bsv

Sri H Krishnappa v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H Krishnappa v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K M Byra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

M S Jagannath Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.H Channe Gowda Vs Authorized Officer

Sri Manish B Gajria Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Dakshina Murthy Vs the Principal Secretary to

Girinagara Vihara Kendra(R) Vs the State of Karnataka