Dismissed

The General Manager (P) v. Sri Vijayabhaskar Shetty

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/15419/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition where the respondent had died and the petitioner failed to file applications to bring legal representatives on record despite objections and delays regarding Article 226 proceedings. The court held that the petition does not survive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground that it does not survive the death of the respondent due to non-joinder of legal representatives.

The General Manager (P) Vs Sri Vijayabhaskar Shetty — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 15419 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO.15419 OF 2021 (L-TER)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, REGION-I NO.48, 5TH FLOOR CHURCH STREET, P B NO. 5014 BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SMT. USHA NANDAKUMAR, AGM (HR).

¶12

(BY SRI SATHISH - ADVOCATE FOR SRI T P MUTHANNA - ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

SRI VIJAYABHASKAR SHETTY SURYALAYA NO.156/A III STAGE, IV BLOCK I G CROSS, SHARADA COLONY BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, BY QUASHING THE ORDER ON VALIDITY OF

¶18

¶19

WP No. 15419 of 2021

¶20

DOMESTIC ENQUIRY VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2013 IN C.R. NO.32/2006 PASSED BY THE C.G.I.T.-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE - F TO THE WRIT PETITION, AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 17.01.2020 IN CR. NO.32/2006 PASSED BY CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Sri Sathish, learned counsel represents

¶24

Sri T.P. Muthanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and

¶25

submits that the sole respondent is no more and hence, he has filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record.

¶26

Office has raised objection on I.A. No.1 of 2022

¶27

stating that an application for condoning the delay has to be filed.

¶28

Even after lapse of eleven months, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed the applications for condoning the delay as well as to set aside the abatement.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 15419 of 2021

¶31

The writ petition relates to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but Article 227 of the Constitution of India relates to supervisory powers vested with the constitutional Courts. Such being the position, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed the applications for condoning the delay as well as to set aside the abatement along with the application filed for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record. However, he seeks for short accommodation for filing the aforesaid applications. The writ petition is instituted against the respondent. Since the respondent is no more, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent are to be brought on record to participate in these proceedings. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and liberty, and Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides for equality before law, and the same is applicable to both the parties in this matter, i.e. the deceased respondent as well to his legal

¶32

¶33

WP No. 15419 of 2021

¶34

representatives. Hence, the writ petition does not survive

¶35

for consideration.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

KVK CT: BHK

The General Manager (P) v. Sri Vijayabhaskar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager (P) v. Sri Vijayabhaskar Shetty

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

Smt Latha B R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

S H Vasantha Vs State of Karntaka

Sri M Krishnamurthy Vs the Tahsildar

Anita W/O Ashok Dige, Vs Vithal S/O Malhari Gaiwad