The High Court of Karnataka quashed a warrant summoning a corporation officer in service-related proceedings against the State Commission, holding the Commissioner lacks adjudicatory authority to compel such attendance.
Warrant dated 03.05.2017 directing the petitioner to present itself before the respondents is hereby quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.25525 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NWKRTC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO.41/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, BANGALORE [R-2 HEREIN] AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP ON THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
Heard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for respondent No.1. Though respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served, they have remained unrepresented.
is before this Court being aggrieved by the warrant dated 03.05.2017 directing the petitioner to present itself before the respondents on 19.05.2015.
3
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEE’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606 and COLLECTOR VS. AJIT JOGI , reported in (2022) 10 SCC 357 , has held as under:
“For the aforesaid reasons, the issue that fell for my consideration is answered holding that the Commission could not have issued such positive direction upon adjudication of a dispute concerning conditions of service of the
4
petitioner qua the fifth respondent. Therefore, the following:
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the fourth respondent-the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission in case No.47/2015 (Service) is quashed.
c. No order as to costs.”
the Commission are procedural powers of the civil Court for the purpose of investigation of cases of suppression or denial of rights to a particular class of persons or harassment or victimization of the said class of citizen and too summon a person as witness. In the instant case, the petitioner is a party to the proceedings and he is represented by an Advocate. That being the factual aspect of the matter, the short question is whether the Commission can compel a particular officer in a
5
hierarchy of a party to attend in the proceedings. The issue is relating to service conditions of the persons in employment of the petitioner-
Corporation.
writ petition is allowed and warrant at Annexure-F,
is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
DL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commissioner can compel an officer of a petitioner corporation to appear as a witness in service proceedings.
Whether the warrant issued summoning the petitioner to produce an officer can be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Collector vs. Ajit JogiReferred¶23
(2022) 10 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
Sri S B Doddamani
The Commissioner Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission
The Secretary Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission
G. Narendra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
