Dismissed

M N Tulujaram v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2023WP/10834/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an endorsement denying the petitioner relief of mandatory injunction to correct his date of birth in service records. Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner had voluntarily given up the mandatory injunction relief in the appellate decree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Endorsement issued by the fourth respondent upheld.

M N Tulujaram Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10834 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M.N.TULUJARAM S/O LATE M.NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER, SHIMOGA-DAVANAGERE & CHITRADURGA, DISTRICTS MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OP. SOCIETIES UNION LTD., NO.500/1A, UPSTARIS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE - 577 002, R/O NO.19 'A' BLOCK, 2^ND CROSS, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI AKSHAY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶13

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR & REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SHIMOGGA-DAVANAGERE & CHITRADURGA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OP., SOCIETIES UNION LTD., MACHENAHALLI, NIDIGE (POST)M SHIMOGGA - 577 002.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION, DR. M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. A.R.SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SHETHECHESHAO/ ADALITHA-2 /Y-06/8634/ 2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE -G DATED 31.01.2017 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Sri.Akshay., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.K.Manjunath., for petitioner, Smt.A.R.Sharadamba.,

¶23

¶24

learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.Vivek., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinav.R., for respondent No.4 and Sri.Prashanth.B.R., learned counsel for respondent No.5 have appeared in person.

¶25

The facts are quite simple and are stated as under:

¶26

It is stated that the petitioner was born on 09.02.1959 at Davanagere. At the time of admitting the petitioner to the Chowkipete Primary School at Davanagere, his date of birth in the school records was wrongly entered as having been born on 24.06.1957. During the year 1992 while the petitioner was searching for old documents at his house, he found a diary wherein he found the entry of his date of birth made by his father in the diary shown as having been born on 09.02.1959 and he also found the written horoscope wherein the petitioner's date of birth was entered as 09.02.1959. When he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly entered in the school record as 27.06.1957 instead of 09.02.1959, he filed O.S.No.957/1993 on the file of the

¶27

¶28

Addl. Munsiff, Davanagere against the respondents 1 to 3 for declaration and mandatory injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the petitioner declaring that the petitioner was born on 10.02.1959 and directed the respondents 1 to 3 to delete the date of birth of the petitioner which was wrongly shown as 24.06.1957 and incorporate the actual date of birth of the petitioner as 10.02.1959.

¶29

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the State preferred an appeal in R.A.No.112/1995 before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Davanagere. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Judge partly allowed the appeal rejecting the mandatory injunction granted by the Trial Court and confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court declaring that the date of birth of the petitioner is 09.02.1959.

¶30

It is stated that the petitioner will retire in the month of June 2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. the petitioner states that he made several representations to

¶31

¶32

the respondents requesting them to enter his date of birth as 09.02.1959 instead of 24.06.1957 in his service records. The first respondent addressed a letter to the Managing Director, KMF, Bengaluru asking him to consider the representation of the petitioner dated:12.09.2016 regarding his change of date of birth as per the Judgment of the Civil Court. the fourth respondent addressed letter to the fifth respondent on 02.12.2016 to examine regarding correction of date of birth of the petitioner as per the Civil Court Judgment and communicate the same to the fourth respondent.

¶33

It is stated that the fourth respondent referred the representation given by the petitioner for change of date of birth from 24.06.1957 to 09.02.1959 as per the Judgment and Decree passed in R.A.No.112/1995 for legal opinion. The advocate sent his legal opinion to the fourth respondent on 20.05.2016 and on the basis of his legal opinion, the fourth respondent issued endorsement bearing No.SHETHECHESHAO / Adalitha-2/Y-06/ 8634/2016-17

¶34

¶35

dated:31.01.2017 stating that the advocate to whom the fourth respondent sought legal opinion has stated that "when the relief of mandatory injunction is denied by the Court and in law M.N.Tulujaram has no right to seek mandatory injunction to effect change of entry as to date of birth after lapse of three years from joining service". The petitioner is at the fag end of his service who will be attaining the age of superannuation in the month of June 2017 on the basis of the petitioner's incorrect date of birth maintained in service records. Hence, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and sought the relief to quash the endorsement bearing No.SHETHECHESHAO/Adalitha-2/ Y-06/ 8634/2016-17 dated:31.01.2017 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-G.

¶36

Sri.Akshay., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting his argument vehemently contended that the fourth respondent is not justified in issuing endorsement.

¶37

¶38

Smt.A.R.Sharadamba., learned AGA for respondents 1 to 3 in presenting her argument, drew the attention of

¶39

the Court to the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court at Annexure-B. Counsel submits that the petitioner has given up his relief of mandatory injunction. Therefore, learned AGA justified the endorsement issued by fourth respondent. Accordingly she submits that the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to entertain the Writ Petition and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶40

Sri.Vivek., learned counsel for respondent No.4 justified the action of the fourth respondent. Counsel further submits that the fourth respondent is the Managing Director, Shimogga - Davanagere & Chitradurga District Milk Producer's Co-operative Societies Union Ltd., and it is not a party to the original proceedings, wherein the petitioner has sought for declaration to change his date of birth. Hence, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is not binding on him.

¶41

¶42

Counsel further submits that assuming for a while that the Judgment passed by the Civil Court is a Judgment in rem. In view of the fact that petitioner has given up his relief of mandatory injunction, the petitioner cannot have grievance. Hence, appropriate order may be passed.

¶43

Counsel Sri.Prashanth.B.R., for respondent No.5 supports the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶44

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the writ papers and also the Annexures with utmost care.

¶45

The only point which requires consideration is, whether the fourth respondent is justified in issuing endorsement at Annexure-G?

¶46

Suffice it to note that the petitioner herein filed suit before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.957/1993 seeking declaration and also mandatory injunction. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated:28.11.1994

¶47

¶48

decreed the suit in toto . On appeal by the State, the Appellate Court modified the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and rejected the relief of mandatory injunction.

¶49

It is not in dispute that the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court has attained finality. The petitioner has not challenged the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court.

¶50

I have carefully heard the arguments on behalf of the Government.

¶51

Learned AGA drew attention of the Court to the Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court.

¶52

I have perused the same with utmost care.

¶53

As could be seen from the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court, petitioner has given up the relief of mandatory injunction. Therefore, filing of petition contending that the fourth respondent is not justified in issuing endorsement is totally unsustainable in law.

¶54

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

TKN

M N Tulujaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M N Tulujaram v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mrs R Parvathamma Vs the State by

Smt Geetha Bangera Vs the Repatriate Co-Operative Finance

Sri J S Venugopal Reddy Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Sri a Vykunta Prabhu Vs Managing Director

Shruthi R Vs Dr R Shreenivas

M/S Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd Vs Union of India