The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 seeking modification of a Tribunal order and challenge to Government Orders. The bench addressed maintainability and apprehensions regarding the Tribunal's relief.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.16771 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
2
3 . SRI R. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED FULL TIME SWEEPER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID, TRAINING, SPECIAL CELL AND ECONOMIC OFFENCES, CARLTON HOUSE BANGALORE 560072 R/A NO 125, 7TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, MUNISHWARA LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE 560097
….PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MODIFYING THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MADE IN C.T.A. NO.111-113/2019 (ANNEXURE –F ) DATED 06.09.2019 OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BY RESERRVNG LIBERTY TO THE PETITIONERS TO CHALLENGE THE G.O. DATED:27.05.2019 OF THE IST RESPONDENT, LETTER/OFFICE ORDER/PROCEDDINGS DATED:28.05.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, LETTER/OFFICE ORDER/PROCEEDINGS DATED:28.05.2019 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, LETTERS/ORDERS DATED:06.06.2019, 19.06.2019 AND 03/06/2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – A9 TO A14 IN THE REJOINDER FILED IN CTA NOS.111-113/19 (ANNEXURE –D ) AS GRANTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. K.R. JAYALAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN WP.NO.57936/2015 (SKAT) DECIDED ON 25.04.2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, G. NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
maintainability of the petition, yet in view of the peculiar observation made while disposing of the contempt petition, the petitioners have expressed an apprehension about the observation of the Tribunal, more particularly that the Tribunal cannot grant any
4
relief as sought by the petitioners. Moreover, after noting that the case of the petitioners should not have been rejected in view of the Government Order dated 27.05.2019 at Annexure-R1.
it is always open for them to challenge such proceedings and no liberty need be reserved.
disposed of.
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
bnv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the Tribunal order and Government Order maintaining its maintainability when it addresses new causes of action.
Whether a separate cause of action arising from Government proceedings is open for challenge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. K.R. Jayalaxmi vs State of KarnatakaReferred¶22
SMT. K.R. JAYALAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN WP.NO.57936/2015 (SKAT)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B.S. SHIVALINGAIAHA AND OTHERS
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
G.NARENDAR
M.G.S.KAMAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
