Dismissed

Karnataka State Road Transport v. K.R. Eregowda

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023WA/1620/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench dismissed the intra-court writ appeal filed by the Rail Corporation challenging a Single Judge's order. The Court held that since the appellant had previously withdrawn a writ petition on the same subject with liberty only for a review, and the Court had not granted liberty for a fresh appeal, the present appeal was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed as not maintainable.

Karnataka State Road Transport Vs K.R. Eregowda — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1620/2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 027 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

K.R. EREGOWDA ADULT REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY KSRTC AND BMTC SAMYUKTHA KARMIKARA SANGHA, NO.23 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BANGALORE - 560 054. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADV.)

¶13

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 13796/2008 DATED 07/09/2011.

¶14

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

This intra court appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.13796/2008.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶19

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the appellant had filed W.P.No.13796/2008 challenging the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.161/2006 wherein the Tribunal had held that order of penalty passed by the Corporation against the respondent in a departmental enquiry on the charges of pilferage were not justified and has set-aside the order of penalty. The learned Single Judge vide the order impugned having allowed the writ petition had held in paragraph No.10 of the order as follows:

¶20

"10. I find force in the submission of Sri.L.Shekhar that the order dt. 24.2.1995 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years whence the workman will not earn any increment and the reduction will have

¶21

¶22

the effect of postponing the future increments, deserves to be read as, on the expiry of the period of punishment, workman would be entitled to restoration and refixation of basic pay with increments together with consequential benefits.

¶23

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid observation

¶24

made by the leaned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, the petitioner corporation has preferred this intra court appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ appeal on the ground that writ appeal cannot be maintained as the same is hit by principle of res judicata. He submits that challenging the very same impugned order the appellant had earlier filed W.A.No.8593/2012 which was withdrawn by the appellant on 29.10.2013 with liberty to redress its grievance before the learned Single Judge by filing a review petition. He submits that subsequently, the review petition filed by the appellant in R.P.No.949/2013 was also dismissed on 03.03.2014 and

¶26

as against the said order, the appellant had filed W.A.No.324/2016 which was dismissed as not pressed on 01.07.2016. He submits that since the earlier writ appeal

¶27

¶28

was withdrawn without seeking any liberty to file a fresh writ appeal as against the very same order impugned, this writ appeal cannot be sustained.

¶29

Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure provides for withdrawal of the suit, which

¶30

reads as follows:

¶31

" 1. Withdrawal of suit of abandonment of part of claim.-

¶32

1. xxx

¶33

2. xxx

¶34

(3). Where the Court is satisfied,-

¶35

(a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or

¶36

(b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of a suit or part of claim,

¶37

it may, on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subjectmatter of such suit or such part of the claim".

¶38

¶39

As per Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of CPC, suit may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh suit when the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case in terms of Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(a) or (b) of CPC. That is, existence of ''formal defect'' or "sufficient grounds". The very same principle is applicable even to the case of withdrawal of writ petition. In the present case liberty has been granted to appellants to file fresh writ petition on same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC, since the Court had found sufficient grounds for granting such prayer.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SARGUJA TRANSPORT SERVICE V. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.P, GWALIOR, AND OTHERS - (1987) 1 SCC 5 has held that principle underlying Rule 1 Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy.

¶41

¶42

In the present case, the appellant had earlier

¶43

filed W.A.No.8593/2012 challenging the very same order which is impugned in this writ appeal and earlier writ appeal was withdrawn by the appellant only with liberty to redress its grievance before the learned Single Judge by filing a review petition. This court while dismissing writ appeal as withdrawn has not reserved any liberty to the appellant to file a fresh writ appeal in respect of the same subject matter and therefore this writ appeal cannot be maintained by the appellant. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶44

NMS

Karnataka State Road Transport v. K.R. Eregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport v. K.R. Eregowda

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

Sri Krishnaiah Vs the Chief Excutive Officer

Chief Executive Officer Vs S Krishnaiah

M Rama Reddy Vs the Land Tribunal

N Nethravathi Vs National Highways Authority of India

Smt Sujatha Vijay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner