Allowed

The Union of India v. M G Venkatesh

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2021WP/6053/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a non-speaking order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order for adopting a casual approach and remanded the matter to decide it on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's orders dated 8-9-2017 and 26-10-2018 were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide it on merits.

The Union of India Vs M G Venkatesh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6053 OF 2019 (S-CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, IMPLEMENTATION CELL, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 011, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶10

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶11

THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), 3^RD FLOOR, GPO BUILDING, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI B. PRAMOD, C.G.C.)

... PETITIONERS

AND:

M.G. VENKATESH S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, O/O. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS POST, GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, AND ALSO RESIDING AT NO.149/15, VITTAL NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

SANJAYA D. KATHAGALLY S/O. DHAMANATH, AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, POSTAL CIVIL DIVISION, DHARWAD, AND RESIDING AT HALIYAL NAKA, BEHIND DR. JOSHI’S CHILDREN HOSPITAL, DHARWAD - 580 006.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI M. RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADV., FOR R-1 & 2)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8-9-2017 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU, IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00964 AND 170/00965/2014 AS ILLEGAL, NON-SPEAKING, CONTRARY TO THE ORDER DATED 17-2-2017 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.59280-59281 OF 2016, AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The present writ petition is arising out of the order dated 8-9-2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.170/00964 & 170/00965/2014.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for Union of India at the outset draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the application by holding that the subject matter is covered on account of order dated 10-12-2013 passed in Original Application No.531 of 2012 and order dated 6-5-2014 passed in Original Application No.839 of 2011. Learned counsel has further draw our attention to the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.59280-59281 of 2016 and contended that earlier also, a non-speaking order was passed by the Tribunal and this Court has remanded the matter back vide order dated 17-2-2017 to pass a speaking order. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has again passed a non-speaking order, that too,

¶27

¶28

by mentioning therein that a concession was given by Union of India and it has been further mentioned in the impugned order that the learned counsel for Union of India has stated that the matter has been concluded on account of judgment delivered in Original Application No.531 of 2012. Learned counsel for Union of India has categorically stated before this Court and also stated in the writ petition that, no such concession was granted at any point of time and the Tribunal, instead of deciding the matter on merits, has simply passed an order allowing the original application. Learned counsel has further stated that a review application was also filed and the Tribunal, instead of deciding the matter on merits, has imposed a costs of Rs.10,000/-.

¶29

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has adopted a very casual approach by not passing a speaking order. The Tribunal, in review application, instead of deciding it on merits, has imposed costs upon Union of India. In our

¶30

¶31

opinion of this Court, the orders dated 8-9-2017 and 26-10-2018 passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide it on merits by passing a detailed fresh order taking into account all facts and law on the subject.

¶32

In case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the judgment is covered by some other case, the Tribunal has to categorically discuss the facts of both the cases and then to pass a speaking order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is

¶34

allowed . The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1-3-2021.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

kvk

The Union of India v. M G Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. M G Venkatesh

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

Yasmin Begam Walikar Vs Union of India

Sri. Sourav Kumar Vs the Union of India

Sri B. C. Sathish Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary

Union of India Vs a Francis Royan

The State of Karnataka Vs Gyaan Tara Charitable Trust

Sudatta Rahul Vs Union of India