High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that dismissed an application for condoning a 3941-day delay, noting the petitioner had already accepted the prior recovery and punishment.
The writ petition praying to quash the ATS order was rejected as woefully belated and vitiated by delay and laches.
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 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO.6975/2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI C.BADARINATH S/O LATE CHELUVARAYA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETD. TAHSILDAR, R/A NO.11, D.V.C. LAYOUT, OPP: TO KUVEMPUNAGAR, POLICE STATION ROAD, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MYSORE-570023. (BY SRI NANJA REDDY P.N, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, (SERVICE-3), M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. (BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)
... PETITIONER
... RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
2
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.1601/2019 DATED 22/02/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LAW AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDERS AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.1601/2019 AS PRAYED FOR ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING” THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal on Application No.1601/2019.
to impugn the order dated 29.05.2007 directing recovery of certain amounts and which is termed as illegal by the petitioner. The Tribunal after appreciating the material on merits and also taking into consideration the delay in approaching the Courts for relief has held that there is no
3
justification for the delay of 10 years 9 months and 21 days. That the cause shown in the affidavit is bereft of any merit. That bald and vague allegations do not constitute a sufficient cause and on the said basis, has been pleased to reject the application for condoning the delay. It has also discussed the aspect of approaching the wrong forum i.e., this Court in earlier round and held even the said exercise has been only in the year 2018. Consequently, the Tribunal was pleased to reject I.A.I praying for condoning the delay.
writ petition. We find no ground which in any manner justifies the delay of nearly 3941 days in approaching the Tribunal for relief. It is not the case of the applicant/petitioner that the impugned order was passed behind his back or he was not aware. In fact, the amounts were being regularly deducted on monthly basis from the salary/pension and the recovery has also been completed. The petitioner having accepted the punishment imposed and the consequential recovery, we do not find any justification
4
for the turn around made by the petitioner now. In that view of the matter, the petition being woefully belated and vitiated by delay and laches stands rejected accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
dn/CT-HR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition praying to quash an ATS order rejecting a late application for condoning delay should be admitted despite a delay of nearly 3941 days.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay or relief given the acceptance of the previous punishment and recovery orders.
Whether the writ petition is barred by laches and excessive delay in approaching the court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri C. Badarinarath
State of Karnataka
G. Narendar
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
