Allowed

D Venkanagowda v. B Ramappa

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/29598/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a Devadaya Inam order. The court quashed a specific order dated 20-12-2014 and directed the Secretary of the Urban Development Department to complete an inquiry within three months with notice to parties, as per a prior order in W.P. No. 43246 of 2011.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the order dated 20-12-2014 (Annexure-H) was quashed; Respondent No.3 was directed to conduct the inquiry within three months and initiate action thereafter.

D Venkanagowda Vs B Ramappa — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29598 OF 2015 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

D. VENKANAGOWDA

¶9

S/O. D. RUDREGOWDRU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, MANAGER OF SRI GOKARNESHWARA TEMPLE JEERNODHDHARA SAMITHI, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 131.

¶10

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

M.V. ANJINAPPA S/O. THUMBANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EX-COUNCILOR, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARAPANAHALLI, R/O. VALMIKI NAGAR, 8TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI - 583 131, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER, PETITIONER NO.1.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI D. VENKANAGOWDA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶14

¶15

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶16

AND:

¶17

B. RAMAPPA AGE MAJOR, CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPALTY, CHALLAKERE (TQ), DIST: CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

¶18

M. K. NALAVADI S/O. KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, COMMISSIONER, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶19

THE SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 01.

¶20

THE DIRECTOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS,

¶21

BANGALORE - 01.

¶22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. G. K. BHAVANA, ADVOCATE, FOR R1-, SRI S. MAHESH., ADVOCATE, FOR R-2, & SRI A. R. SHARADAMBA, A.G.A., FOR R-3 TO R-5)

¶25

¶26

¶27

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF THE CONCOCTED ANNEXURE-H WHICH IS CREATED BY THE ILLEGAL AND DISHONEST ACTS OF RESPONDENT NO.2-OFFICER, WHICH IS FULLY AGAINST ANNEXURES-A TO F AND G-1 TO G-13 IN WRIT PETITION NO.43246 OF 2011 AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION AND WHICH IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ILLEGAL AND MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE ACTS OF RESPONDENT NO.1-OFFICER AS PER ANNEXURES-K & L WHICH ARE OPPOSING TO ANNEXURES-D & M OF WRIT PETITION NO.43246 OF 2011 AT ANNEXURE-A TO THIS PETITION AND TO DISMISS ANNEXURE-H, AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

"a. The petitioners respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to conduct enquiry in respect of the concocted AnnexureH which is created by the illegal and dishonest acts of respondent No.2-Officer, which is fully against Annexures-A to F and G-1 to G-13 in Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 at Annexure-A to this petition and which is in support of the illegal and malfeasance and misfeasance acts of respondent No.1Officer as per Annexures-K & L which are opposing to Annexures-D & M of Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 at Annexure-A to this petition and to dismiss annexure-H.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶35

b. Based on the illegal and concocted Annexure-H created by respondent No.2Officer with malfeasance act with malafide intention and which completely against Annexures-A to F and G-1 to G-13 of Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 at Annexure-A to this petition and Annexures-K & L which is completely against Annexure-D of Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 and Annexure-J of this writ petition, which is an obstacle to the justifiable final order dated 4-6-2002 passed in Writ Petition No.20935 of 1998 by this Hon'ble Court with a view to safeguard the valuable Devadaya Inam Category premises of respondent No.1-Samithi's Sri Gokarneshwara Temple, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4-Officers to conduct enquiry in the presence of the Manager of the respondent No.1-Samithi."

¶36

The grievance of the petitioners is that, without complying the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 4-6-2014 in Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 (LB-RES), the respondents are seeking to deal with Devadaya Inam of the petitioners.

¶37

This Court, by its order dated 4-6-2014 in Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 (LB-RES), had categorically directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein, i.e. the Secretary, Department of Urban

¶38

¶39

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶40

Development and Municipal Administration, and the Director of Municipal Administration, respectively, to conduct enquiry and take action. While doing so, the petitioners were also to be informed about the completion of enquiry, which was to be completed within a period of three months.

¶41

On an earlier occasion, i.e. on 2-3-2023, when the matter was argued, petitioner No.1-party-in-person had brought to the notice of this Court that the enquiry was not conducted, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to obtain instructions and make submissions. Today, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no enquiry or report.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that enquiry had been completed by Town Municipal Council and the report is submitted to the Deputy Commissioner.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶45

Be that as it may, even that is not in compliance with

¶46

the aforesaid order dated 4-6-2014 in as much as the direction was to the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Administration, and the Director of Municipal Administration, and not to the Deputy Commissioner. It is, therefore, made clear that enquiry has to be conducted by respondent No.3-the Secretary, Urban Development Department, and while conducting such enquiry, necessary opportunity to be given to all parties to the lis. Enquiry to be completed within a period of three months from today and submitted report only thereafter could initiating a necessary action be considered. As such, I pass the following

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

i. Writ petition is allowed ;

¶49

ii. The order dated 20-12-2014 passed by respondent

¶50

No.4 at Annexure-H is hereby quashed, and

¶51

¶52

WP No. 29598 of 2015

¶53

iii. Respondent No.3 is directed to carryout and complete necessary enquiry, as directed in order dated 4-6-2014 in Writ Petition No.43246 of 2011 (LB-RES) within a period of three months' from today, after affording opportunity to all parties to the lis , and

¶54

thereafter to initiate necessary action.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:STK

D Venkanagowda v. B Ramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Venkanagowda v. B Ramappa

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

Smt Jayanthi Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

T. N. Shivaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Vokkaligara Kshemabivruddi Sangha (R) Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Smt Channabasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Happi Organic Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Eleven & Co. Vs State of Karnataka