Dismissed

Sri. Parameswarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/3609/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider a representation. The court held the petition became infructuous as the matter was replied to via a legal notice and the petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the reply.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sri. Parameswarappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.3609 OF 2022 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. N.MALLAPPA, NO. 56/A, SUGGAPPA LAY-OUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶9

SRI. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT NO.547, 7^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, ATTUR LAY-OUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI. G.NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. GIRIYAPPA, NO.7, RAJ ROAD, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA, GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 065.

¶12

SRI. B.H.VASAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE. G.N.HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT NO. 392, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, ATTUR LAY-OUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶14

SRI. L.OBALAREDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LAXMAN REDDY, R/AT NO. 11/1, 2^ND CROSS, MADIVALA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶15

SRI. R.VASUDEVAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. B.RAGANATHAN, R/AT NO. 428, LIG , 4^TH PHASE, 4^TH CROSS, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶16

SRI. E.SANKARAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. ELUMALAI, R/AT NO. 157/4, MANJUNATHANAGAR, 3^RD PHASE, RAJAJINAGAR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶17

SRI. P.SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. P.DHARMA RAO, R/AT NO. 107, MAX APARTMENTS, H.M.R.LAYOUT, GOKULA, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶18

SRI. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O. NARASIMHALU NAIDU, R/AT NO. 69, 2^ND CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, GKVT POST, BENGALURU - 560 065.

¶19

SRI. N.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. MUNISWAMY REDDY,

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶21

R/AT NO. 59, TG LAYOUT, 415, 'S' CROSS, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI, 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶22

SMT. TULASI RAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O. YOGAPATHI NAIDU, R/A.NO.E.W.S 383, 7^TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, 14^TH 'B' CROSS ROAD, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶23

SRI. H.V.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. VEERA BHADRESH, R/AT NO. 42, PRAKRUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR ANJANAYA TEMPLE, KENCHANAHALLI, SINGANAYAKANAHALLIL POST, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶24

SRI. B.OBULESH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. B.GEORGE, NO. 891, DODDA CHANNAOPPA LAYOUT, RAMACHANDRAPURA, BENGALURU NORTH, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 013.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. VIVEK., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶30

ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT 1946, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 069.

¶31

DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE - 2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶32

ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSONER, REGIONAL OFFICE - 2, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶33

MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - OPERATIONS, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SUBRAHMANYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Sri.Vivek., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinav.R., for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 have appeared in person.

¶41

Sri.Subrahmanya., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Prabhakar., for respondent No.5 has appeared through video conferencing.

¶42

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated:20.01.2022 at Annexure-L.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.Subrahmanya., submits that Annexure-L is not a representation. In fact it is a legal notice issued by the learned counsel and the fifth respondent has suitably replied to the said notice on 18.02.2022. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the reply, they have to challenge

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:37035 WP No. 3609 of 2022

¶47

the same. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition has become infructuous and appropriate order may be passed.

¶48

The oral submission made by learned counsel

¶49

Sri.Subrahmanya., is placed on record.

¶50

A perusal of Annexure-L would reveal that it is a legal notice issued on 20.01.2022 and the fifth respondent has suitably replied to the said legal notice and the same is furnished in the Writ Petition at Annexure-R6 along with statement of objections.

¶51

The Legal notice has been suitably replied by the fifth respondent. Hence, nothing requires for consideration in this Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶52

However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the reply of the fifth respondent, they are at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum.

¶53

TKN

¶54

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. Parameswarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Parameswarappa 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

M/S Hindustan Distilleries (Karnataka) Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Annaraya @ Annappa

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Officer

Mahadev N R Vs the Management of

Karnataka State Road Transport Vs B T Revanna

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College Vs Sri. a Karunanidhi