The Managing Director v. D Parashuram

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2025RP/175/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC review petition Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; review of order dated 09/03/2018 in WP No.12459/2013; promotion and consequential seniority dispute; conductor D Parashuram Badge No.2201(851), Davanagere Depot; promotion compared with Sri Neelakantappa; incorrect concession made at the bar; incorrect statement in paragraph 3 of order under review; recall of order and restoration of writ petition for fresh consideration; listing on 29.01.2025; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde; decided 08 January 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:447.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed; order dated 09.03.2018 in WP No.12459/2013 recalled and writ petition restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be listed on 29.01.2025. ¶¶37

The Managing Director Vs D Parashuram — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review Petition allowed; order dated 09.03.2018 in WP No.12459/2013 recalled and writ petition restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be listed on 29.01.2025.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.03.2018 in WP No.12459/2013, which was founded on the statement in its paragraph 3 (that erroneous promotion given to a junior had been withdrawn), was passed on the basis of an incorrect concession made at the bar and ought to be recalled. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The contention in the statement of objections prima facie reveals that the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the order under review is incorrect; the order was passed on the basis of an incorrect concession made at the bar.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Under these circumstances, the order dated 09.03.2018 has to be recalled and the writ petition has to be restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The Review Petition is allowed; the writ petition is restored and is to be listed on 29.01.2025.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC by the Managing Director, KSRTC and the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere Division seeking review of the order dated 09.03.2018 in WP No.12459/2013, whereby the predecessor Judge had disposed of the writ petition of conductor D Parashuram (Badge No.2201(851)) directing the Corporation to consider him for promotion with effect from the promotion date given to one Sri Neelakantappa and to confer consequential seniority. The Court noted that paragraph 3 of the order under review (recording that erroneous promotion given to a junior had been withdrawn) rested on an incorrect concession made at the bar, and that the statement of objections prima facie showed that paragraph 3 statement to be incorrect. Held: the order dated 09.03.2018 is recalled; the Review Petition is allowed and the writ petition is restored for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be listed on 29.01.2025. Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. (decided 08.01.2025).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 175 OF 2018

¶6

¶7

WP NO.12459 OF 2013

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560027, REPRESETNED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶10

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶12

(BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

D PARASHURAM, S/O SRI DYAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KSRTC, CONDUCTER BADGE NO.2201(851), KSRTC, DAVANAGERE DEPOT, DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2018 PASSED IN WP NO.12459/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶25

This Review Petition is filed to review the order dated 09.03.2018. In terms of the said order, Writ Petition was disposed of by the predecessor of this Court directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from the promotion date said to have been given to one Sri.Neelakantappa and to give consequential seniority to the petitioner by passing appropriate orders.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite attention of this Court to paragraph No.3 of the order in W.P.No.12459/2013, which reads as under:

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:447 RP No. 175 of 2018

¶28

"3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that erroneously promotion was given to junior to the petitioner. Thereafter, after realizing, the same was withdrawn by the respondentCorporation".

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also refer to the statement of objections filed by the petitioners to the said Writ Petition. The contention raised in the statement of objection prima facie would reveal that the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the order under review is incorrect. It appears that the order is passed on the basis of incorrect concession made at the bar.

¶30