Allowed

Sri Manjunatha Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2023WP/714/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the State's refusal to renew the petitioner's surveyor license. The court quashed the refusal noting the acquittal was based on failure of evidence, not benefit of doubt, and ordered the State to reconsider the renewal application within three months.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement refusing license renewal was quashed; the State ordered to reconsider the renewal application within three months.

Sri Manjunatha Rao Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 714 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO, S/O M N ESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS SURVEYOR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK OFFICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. R/A SRI MANJUNATHA RAO, S/O M.N.ESHWAR RAO, SRI NANJUNDESHWAR NILAYA, MARANA LAYOUT, DODDBIDDARIKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 073.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, THE LAND SURVEY-2 REVENUE SYSTEMS AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, K R CIRCLE,

¶17

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT/NOTICE DATED 16.8.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE LICENSE OF THE PETITIONERS GRANTED TO THEM VIDE ANNEXURE – A.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, a licensed surveyor, is before this Court seeking quashment of an endorsement dated 16.08.2019, by which, the State refuses to renew the license of the petitioner.

¶24

Heard Sri. Saravana S., learned counsel appearing

¶25

for the petitioner and Sri. M. Vinod Kumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶28

Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in

¶29

the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner is granted a license as a Surveyor under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on 01.06.2002. After about 6 years of the petitioner joining the service as a licenced Surveyor, a case comes to be registered against the petitioner on an allegation that he has demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- for preparation of a survey sketch. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the police file a charge sheet in Spl.Case No.102/2011. The concerned Court on a full blown trial and consideration of the material before it acquits the petitioner in terms of its order dated 22.04.2016 of the offences alleged against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶31

On the petitioner getting acquitted, submits a representation to the competent authority seeking revocation of suspension of license which had been passed on the petitioner being tried as an accused in Spl.Case No.102/2011. Even after passage of 2 years of the said representation, the respondents

¶32

¶33

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶34

have refused to renew the license of the petitioner on the ground that the judgment of the acquittal was on benefit of doubt.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to contend that the acquittal of the petitioner is on two grounds. One want of sanction for prosecution and the other no evidence against the petitioner. He would submit that it was an acquittal on merits and not on benefit of doubt and therefore, the licence is to be renewed.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate while refuting the submissions of the petitioner would seek to contend that integrity of any Government servant is paramount. He would contend that once integrity is lost, the renewal of license of the petitioner cannot be renewed. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶40

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The license of the petitioner stood suspended on account of him being tried as an accused in Spl.Case No.102/2011. The Spl.Case No.102/2011 ends up in acquittal of the petitioner in terms of the order of the concerned Court dated 22.04.2016. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court to acquit the petitioner insofar as it is germane reads as follows:

¶41

" 26. Explanations offered by the accused as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are quite consistent with the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses. As already stated, in a case like this the prosecution has to establish that some work connected with the complainant was pending with the 1st accused. Records disclose that whatever was required to be done by the 1st accused had already been done by him and on 05.02.2009 itself he had sent the records to his official superiors and therefore a doubt arises in the mind of the Court whether any demand was made by the 1st accused for bribe on 17.02.2009 when the complaint was lodged or on 18.02.2009 when the trap was laid.

¶42

27. P.W.3 has admitted in paragraph 9 of his cross-examination (vide page 7) that if Ex.P.8 had been shown to him he would not have kept licence of the 1st accused under suspension. It is therefore clear from the evidence of P.W.3 also that the work which the accused was required to do in connection with issue of sketch to the complainant had been done by him much before the date of trap.

¶43

28. Now as far as the 2nd accused is concerned, a mere reading of Section 8 of the Act would show that to convict an accused under that provision it must be established that he accepted for himself or for any other person, any gratification, as a motive or reward, for

¶44

¶45

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶46

including any public servant, to do or forbear to do, any official act. There is no such evidence in this case. Even otherwise it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any number of decisions that mere recovery of money is not sufficient to convict an accused under the provisions of the Act. I am therefore of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish either of the charges beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, pass the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The accused are acquitted. The bail bonds executed by them and their sureties stand cancelled.

¶49

M.O.8 is confiscated. M.O.10 shall be returned to a responsible official from the office of the Lokayuktha, Bengaluru Rural District after expiry of the period prescribed for preferring an appeal against this judgment. Rest of the material objections shall be destroyed after expiry of the said period."

¶50

A perusal of the order would clearly indicate that the acquittal of the petitioner is not on benefit of doubt, but on the failure of the prosecution to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the reason rendered in the impugned communication that the acquittal is on benefit of doubt is contrary to the facts or the order itself. Apart from the aforesaid, the Court also records that there was no sanction accorded for the prosecution of the petitioner. In the light of the order passed by the concerned Court, the order impugned

¶51

¶52

WP No. 714 of 2021

¶53

would be rendered unsustainable and for the aforesaid reasons,

¶54

the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶57

ii. The endorsement dated 16.08.2019 stands quashed.

¶58

iii. Respondent No.1 - State shall reconsider the representation of the petitioner for renewal of the license as surveyor, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Sri Manjunatha Rao v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha Rao 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

Sri Rajesh Kumar Vs Authorised Officer State Bank of India

Sri. Jayaram. R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Aaditya Trading Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree Tungabhadra Hangami Noukarara Manoranjana Sangha (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Anilkumar Vs the State of Karnataka