Disposed

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/6946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought quashing of a Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order and stay of a recruitment notification. Since the Tribunal's Members were equally divided and the matter was referred to a third Bench under Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the High Court held the petition premature and disposed of it with liberty to approach after the third Bench decides.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9598-DB WP No. 6946 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 6946 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI.MAHADESHWARA .K. S/O KRISHNA.M, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.47, APRAMEYA BRINDAVANAM, BDA LAYOUT, KAMBIPURA, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT, BTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶18

KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9598-DB WP No. 6946 of 2024

¶20

SRI. KEERTHI A.C, C/O CHANNAVERRAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT D.NO.66, 6^TH CROSS, OPP. BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MANDYA - 574 101.

¶21

SRI. PALAKSHA C.T AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAKODAGULA, KOPPALU, TEJUR POST, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶22

SRI.ANAND.G, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8/21, 1^ST CROSS, ABHAYA GARDEN, VANNARPET, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶23

SRI. GURUPRASAD.B, S/O BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.309, 14^TH CROSS, NEAR JANATHA COLONY, MAGALUR, TUMKUR - 572 105.

¶24

SRI. VIJAYENDRA DHAVALAGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT H.NO.18, TREASURY COLONY, TAKKE ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 102.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. RUBEN JACOB, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/01/2024 IN A.NO.3512/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:9598-DB WP No. 6946 of 2024

¶30

KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner seeks for grant of stay of all the further proceedings of the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.3512/2022 in pursuant to the order in file No.KSAT/PENDING/PSTG/ORDERS/1/2018 and stay the operation and implementation of the Notification bearing No.Ref.No.PSC.77 R,T.B-2/2022-23/1295 dated 22.07.2022 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-A19 insofar as it relates to respondent Nos.4 to 8 in this matter.

¶35

Learned AAG submits that the impugned order passed by the KSAT indicates that there shall be some divergent findings/opinion and since there was a divergent findings/opinion rendered by the KSAT, which consists of one Judicial Member and one Administrative Member, the matter has been referred to the third bench to proceed in further and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:9598-DB WP No. 6946 of 2024

¶38

the same is indicated in the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal in A.No.3512/2022.

¶39

4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶40

submits that referring the matter to the third bench is contrary to Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and he emphasizing the concept of Section 26 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which reads as thus:

¶41

"26. Decision to be by majority .— If the Members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the Members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the Chairman who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other Members of the Tribunal and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Tribunal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it."

¶42

5. The learned AAG in this matter submits that this

¶43

writ petition is a premature in nature since the matter has been referred to third Bench.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9598-DB WP No. 6946 of 2024

¶46

Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by

¶47

the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the counter submission made by the learned AAG and the fact that the petitioner has to approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India only after the opinion of the third Bench, it

¶48

appears that the present petition is premature in nature.

¶49

Consequently, the writ petition is hereby disposed

¶50

of.

¶51

Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach

¶52

this Court soon after the decision of the Third Bench.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

HKV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri.Mahadeshwara .K. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Devendrappa S G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited Vs 3M India Limited

Sri. Thimmappa Reddy Vs Smt. Yerramma

T N Vijayanarayana Reddy Vs Dr Bagadi Gautham

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Raghunatha Reddy H B