Disposed

The State of Karnataka v. K Siddaraju

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2022WP/3560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses two writ petitions filed against a transfer order, noting that the impugned order was set aside by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal and the respondents issued an Office Memorandum correcting the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; No liberty to represent regarding posting at nearby place granted explicitly, though liberty reserved in order; Costs reduced.

The State of Karnataka Vs K Siddaraju — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.693/2022 (S-KSAT) C/w WRIT PETITION NO.3560/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

IN W.P NO.693/2022

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. N.DEEPAK, S/O SRI S.NARAYANA, AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE AUDITOR, REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027

¶11

PRESENTLY REPORTED BEFORE THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶12

... PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI NAGENDRA NAIK.R, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560009.

¶18

SRI. K SIDDARAJU, S/O SRI KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR/SHIRASTEDAR, NADAKACHERI, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶19

ALSO AT: NO:286, 6^TH CROSS, 9^TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560072.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI M.NAGARAJAN, ADV. FOR C/R3.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 IN APPLICATION NO.5504/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEFORE THE KARNAATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APLICATION NO.5504/2021 ETC.

¶23

IN W.P NO.3560/2022

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶26

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶27

... PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶29

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. K.SIDDARAJU, S/O KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (SHIRESTEDAR), NADA KACHERI, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 562130.

¶32

SRI. N.DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS REVENUE AUDITOR, REGIONAL COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU– 560027.

¶33

... RESPONDENTS

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5504/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) ETC.

¶35

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, M.G.S KAMAL J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Present petitions are filed seeking to set-aside the

¶38

order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Application No.5504/2021 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Benglauru, whereby the application

¶39

¶40

filed by respondent No.3 in W.P.No.693/2022 questioning the transfer order, was allowed.

¶41

Learned HCGP has filed a memo along with Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2022 in terms of which the petitioner in W.P.No.693/2022 has been transferred to the post of Manager, SLAO, Chakravahi Savehaklu Scheme, Shivamogga District, while respondent No.3 in W.P.No.693/2022, has been transferred as Election Shirastedar, Jagaluru Taluk Office, Davanagere District.

¶42

3. In view of the aforesaid Office Memorandum,

¶43

nothing survives for consideration in these petitions.

¶44

Sri. M. Nagarajan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.693/2022 submits that respondent No.3 is left with only one year two months of service and that he may be given liberty to make a representation to the respondent authorities to post him at nearby place, if available.

¶45

¶46

Such liberty is reserved to respondent No.3 to make a representation.

¶47

The Tribunal while disposing of the application

¶48

had imposed a cost of Rs.20,000/- on the respondent-State. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, cost is reduced to Rs.10,000/- subject to the condition that the sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited to the Chief Ministers Relief Fund within a period of eights weeks.

¶49

Petitions are disposed of in terms of the above.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

dn/CT-HR

The State of Karnataka v. K Siddaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. K Siddaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B a Nanda Kumar Vs B a Jaya Ganapathy

Sri Shivakumar D C Vs Smt Meenakshi K

Smt. K S Parvathamma Vs H B Kaveramma

The State of Karnataka Vs S K Somashekara

M.C. Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S Vanaja Vs the State of Karnataka