Disposed

Sri M Veerabhadrappa v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024WP/3149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations regarding promotion. The court directed the first respondent to consider the representations within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations within four weeks from 06/02/2024.

Sri M Veerabhadrappa Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5752 WP No. 3149 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3149 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI M. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. MUNIYAPPA, DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027. ... PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI SATHISH RAJU .J AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, HUBLI – 580 030.

¶12

SRI SHARANABASAPPA BHAVIKATTI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN, CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., GULBARGA – 585 102. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 & R-3 – NOTICE D/W)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN THE WRITTEN

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:5752 WP No. 3149 of 2024

¶17

REPRESENTATIONS DATED 28.06.2023 AND 17.07.2023 AT ANNEXURES-J AND K RESPECTIVELY AND WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF LAW OFFICER (SELECTION GRADE-I), IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner in this petition is seeking for the

¶21

following prayers:

¶22

“a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to consider the grievances raised by the petitioner against the Respondents 2 and 3 in the written representations dated 28.6.2023 and 17.7.2023 at ANNEXURES-J

¶23

& K respectively and with a further direction to 1^st Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Chief Law Officer (Selection Grade-I), in accordance with law under the facts and circumstances of the case; and

¶24

b) ISSUE any other appropriate writ, order or orders or direction as this Hon’ble court may deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.”

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations at Annexures – “J” & “K” dated 28.06.2023

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:5752 WP No. 3149 of 2024

¶28

and 17.07.2023 respectively, submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.1 are not considered and the case of the petitioner that the promotion to the cadre of chief Law Officer (Selection Grade-I).

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Corporation would submit that the representations of the petitioner would be considered if reasonable time is granted, necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.

¶30

The said submission is noted.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioner would be meted if

¶32

the representations of the petitioner are considered in a time-bound manner. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representations at Annexures – “J” & “K” dated 28.06.2023 and 17.07.2023 in accordance with law within the outer limit of four weeks from today (06/02/2024).

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri M Veerabhadrappa v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Veerabhadrappa v. the Managing Director

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 Eshwarappa B Vs the Divisional Controller

Mrs Aneena George Vs Mr Sunil Kumar Mehto

M/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Limited Vs Regional Pf Commissioner -Ii

The Management of Institute Vs K.Nagabhusan

The Management of Emc Software and Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr. Subramanian Kaleeshwaran

Smt Vidya v Raikar Vs the Karnataka State Road and Transport Corporation