Dismissed

S H Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/9354/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an IAS officer over alleged purchase irregularities and claimed denial of retrospective promotion. The Court held he lacked locus standi on the disciplinary relief, that media reports cannot ground PIL-style relief, and promotion grievances belong before the Tribunal. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

S H Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5776 WP No. 9354 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 9354 OF 2016 (S-DE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S.H. GOPAL, S/O LATE SRI. HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOSTEL WARDEN, GOVT. ST. COLLEGE HOSTEL, KENGERI, UPA NAGAR, MARANNA BUILDING, OPPOSITE SHANKAR NAG AUTOSTAND, BANGALORE.

¶8

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

RESIDING ADDRESS S.H. GOPAL, RESIDING AT H.NO.1059, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, M.C.LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 40, MOBILE NO. 7406218422. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.H. GOPAL, PARTY IN PERSON (ABSENT) )

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & PRESIDENT OF I.A.S. OFFICERS, INEFFICIENCY EXAMINIATION COMMITTEE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶12

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5776 WP No. 9354 of 2016

¶13

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM, VIDHANA SOUDHA, & MEMBER SECRETARY OF I.A.S. OFFICERS INEFFICIENCY EXAMINATION COMMITTEE, BANGALORE - 01.

¶14

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO SOCIAL WELFARE & MEMBER OF I.A.S. OFFICERS INEFFICIENCY EXAMINATION COMMITTEE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTORS (EST), SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. A.S. HARISHA, AGA)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATING DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST MR.MANJUNATH PRASAD I.A.S. VIDE ANNEXURE-N.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶22

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5776 WP No. 9354 of 2016

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against one Manjunath Prasad.

¶26

The petitioner's grievance is that, though he was eligible for retrospective promotion during 2009, his promotion is ignored. The petitioner is also alleging that one Manjunath Prasad is guilty of irregularities in purchase of beds and other materials for Social Welfare Department hostels. Placing reliance on the news report published in Samyuktha Karnataka, a mandamus is sought to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Manjunath Prasad. This petition is filed on 17.02.2016.

¶27

If the petitioner is really aggrieved on the

¶28

ground that he was not considered for promotion, he has an efficacious remedy and he has to ventilate his grievances before the competent Tribunal. Insofar as mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate disciplinary

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:5776 WP No. 9354 of 2016

¶31

proceedings, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no locus to seek said relief. Placing reliance on media report, the captioned petition is filed which is in the nature of public interest litigation. Therefore, no relief can be granted by this Writ Court for the reasons stated Supra.

¶32

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

¶33

stands dismissed .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK

S H Gopal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S H Gopal 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

Mr Antoni D Cunha @ Danny Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Subramanya Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Umeshaiah Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

V Nagaraja Vs the Managing Director

Dr. Neema Gnanadev Vs Bangalore University