Allowed

Smt. Shanthamma v. the Deputy Commissioner/

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/17414/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 praying to quash orders returning the appeal on the ground that action was initiated at petitioner's instance. Court relied on precedent and held appellate authority must consider appeal on merits; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders returning the appeal quashed; matter remanded to Deputy Commissioner to consider appeal on merits; deposit returned.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner/ — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:37095 WP No. 17414 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 17414 OF 2021 (GM-PDS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE M. BHADRAIAH, AGE 73 YEARS, FAIR PRICE SHOP NO 19134-128, RAVIVARMA STREET, SHIMOGA TOWN - 577 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. T. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

JOINT DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, D.C. COMPOUND, SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R, AGA)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:37095 WP No. 17414 of 2021

¶19

ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 25.02.21 VIDE ANNX-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, returning the appeal filed by the

¶24

petitioner, calling in question the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Joint Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs, Shimoga District.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner approached respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Appellate Authority questioning the orders passed by the Joint Director, the Deputy Commissioner has held that the action was initiated against the petitioner at his instance and therefore, it would not be right on his

¶26

part to hear the appeal. The Deputy Commissioner

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37095 WP No. 17414 of 2021

¶28

therefore directed the petitioner to approach the higher authority. Learned counsel submits that this Court has considered similar such contentions in the case of

¶29

R.Manjunath Vs. The Deputy Commissioner in W.P.

¶30

16976/2021 dated 16.12.2022.

¶31

It is clear from the said order that this Court

¶32

has held that it does not lie in the mouth of the Deputy Commissioner to say that the action was initiated against the petitioner as per his direction and therefore, he could not be competent to hear the appeal. This Court therefore directed that initiation of the action may have been at the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, but that does not preclude the appellate authority to consider an appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled for similar relief.

¶33

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.07.2021 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:37095 WP No. 17414 of 2021

¶36

remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, to consider the appeal in C.R.No.12/2021-2022 on

¶37

merits and in accordance with law.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

The amount deposited by the petitioner is

¶40

before this Court is directed to be returned to the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

CT: BHK

Smt. Shanthamma v. the Deputy Commissioner/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanthamma v. the Deputy Commissioner/

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

D. v. Basavaraj Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Sri.Pradeep Kumar.S Vs M/S Canara Bank Limited

M/S Sree Sreeivas Jewellers Vs the National Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

V Shivashankarappa Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to

Smt. C. Varalakshmi Vs the Circle Inspector

M/S. Kuberakshi Hotels (P) Ltd., Vs the Reserve Bank of India