Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc) v. Sri. Shambulingaiah

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2023WA/152/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed KSRTC's writ petition challenging a Commission order, holding the Chief Law Officer lacked authority to file it. High Court Bench quashed the Single Judge order, observing no challenge was made to the Chief Law Officer's authority.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and the appeal is allowed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.152 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC) REGINAL WORKSHOP KENGERI, BANGALORE - 560 060 JEREOM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L. ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI. SHAMBULINGAIAH S/O SRI. LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O NO.110, 3RD CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD DEEPANJALI NAGARA BANGALORE - 560 0226.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

¶20

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(R2 & R3 SERVED

¶23

V/O DTD:07.06.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.25167/2016 (GM-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION, AS PRAYED FOR.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

None for the respondent though served.

¶29

This intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the

¶30

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, takes an exception to an order dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

¶31

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

¶33

¶34

Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') has been dismissed.

¶35

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 is an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). Respondent No.1 was transferred by an order dated 16.11.2010 from Bangalore division to Ramanagaram division. Being aggrieved by the order of transfer, it appears that respondent No.1 approached the Commission. In the aforesaid proceeding, the Commission issued a bailable warrant to the Managing Director of the Corporation on 21.04.2016.

¶36

The Corporation challenged the aforesaid order

¶37

dated 21.04.2016 in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 17.12.2020, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Managing Director

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

¶39

¶40

of the Corporation cannot delegate the powers to the Chief Law Officer to file the petition with regard to

¶41

challenge to impugned order dated 21.04.2016.

¶42

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent though served. It is pertinent to note that the authority of Chief Law Officer who represent the Managing Director of the Corporation was not challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Chief Law Officer could not represent the Managing Director and challenge the order dated 21.04.2016. It is stated on behalf of the Corporation that the Divisional Manager, through his advocate, shall regularly appear in the proceeding before the Commission which is still pending.

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:21946-DB WA No.152 of 2021

¶44

For the aforementioned reasons, order dated

¶45

17.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

¶46

W.P.No.25126/2016 is hereby quashed.

¶47

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the pending interlocutory

¶48

application is also disposed of.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc) v. Sri. Shambulingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc) v. Sri. Shambulingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manyata Developers Private Limited Vs Arcil-Ast-Ix-Trust

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs Manyata Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Satish Kumar M Vs Sri Prashanth P a

Madhu Steel Corporation Vs Innvoative Studios Pvt. Ltd.

Varalakshmi M S Vs Commissioner of Police Bengaluru

M/S Renown Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf