Allowed

Sri Santosh Kumar Kattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024WP/29361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by senior sub-registrars challenging an interim order of the Service Tribunal. Relying on a similar cognate petition, the Court allowed the petition, granting relief identical to that accorded in the earlier matter.

What did the court decide?

Granted relief identical to that accorded to litigants in the cognate petition W.P.No.29319/2024 with costs having been made easy.

Sri Santosh Kumar Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43922-DB WP No. 29361 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 29361 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR KATTIMANI S/O SRI. REVAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR. OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BEGUR, BENGALURU R/A. H.NO. 2030, 28B CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 065.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. PRASANNA S/O SRI PUTTASWAMY G, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU R/A. H.NO. 1927, VANASHREE, 8^TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 065.

¶11

SMT. AMBIKA PATEL G P, W/O SRI SUNDAR T H, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU R/A. FLAT NO. 1102, TOWER 2, L & T RAIN, TREE BOULEVARD APARTMENT, BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA. BENGALURU-560 091.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43922-DB WP No. 29361 of 2024

¶13

SRI. NAJEER AHAMAD NADAF S/O SRI. PEERSAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560 064, R/A. 9^TH CROSS, 'A' SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶14

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O SRI. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU, R/A. FLAT NO. 406, WEST SKY WAY APPARTMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, SRIRAMPUR POST, JAKKUR, BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. J M ANIL KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAWAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W SRI.S R KHAMROZ KHAN.,AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/10/2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.49484952/2024 (ANNEXURE-A), BY GRATING THE INTERIM ORDER PRAYED IN THE SAID APPLICATIONS AND II) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43922-DB WP No. 29361 of 2024

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶28

This Petition by the civil servants calls in question a

¶29

common interim order of the Service Tribunal whereby reprieve has been denied, fixing 11^th November, 2024 as

¶30

the date of hearing of the main matter.

¶31

The subject matter of this Petition is substantially

¶32

similar to the case in W.P.No.29319/2024 (S-KSAT) wherein the operative portion reads as under:

¶33

“We agree with the submission of learned AAG that the ongoing counseling process need not be interdicted; however, its outcome shall not be acted upon till after the Tribunal decides the pending Applications. We request the Tribunal to take up the same for early disposal in accordance with law regard being had to the likely repercussions of long pendency. All contentions of the parties are kept open.”

¶34

Learned advocates appearing for the Petitioners

¶35

are right in telling us that like cases should be decided

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:43922-DB WP No. 29361 of 2024

¶38

alike and relief granted to one set of litigants needs to be

¶39

extended to the other sets, in the absence of any derogatory factors being demonstrated.

¶40

In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off granting the same relief as has been accorded to the litigants in the cognate Petition mentioned above, costs having been made easy.

¶41

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶42

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶43

Snb/ List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1

Sri Santosh Kumar Kattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Santosh Kumar Kattimani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Prasad Vs the Union of India

Sri Raghunath .S Vs Canara Bank

Sri K v Naidu Vs Sri P Jagadish

Sri. Suresh Hanidund, Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri T R Manjunath

Union of India Vs Sri S N Manjunatha