Sri Dilnawaz D Badami S/O D.a.Badami Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Dilnawaz D Badami S/O D.a.Badami Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition before the appropriate Bench.

Issue for consideration

Whether this writ petition challenging the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal can proceed before this Bench, in view of the territorial-jurisdiction position that judicial review of an order of a particular Bench of the Tribunal lies with the Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction that Tribunal Bench decided the dispute.

Court's answer

This Court respectfully follows the decision of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.201968/2023 dated 20.02.2024 on the question of territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition before the appropriate Bench.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Dilnawaz D. Badami, aggrieved by his non-selection under the Basketball sports quota in the final select list dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure-A7) for the post of Deputy Range Forest Officer and by the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Application No.7549/2019 (Annexure-F), filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Dharwad Bench seeking quashing of the Tribunal order and the select list and a mandamus for inclusion of his name in the select list. Learned counsel placed on record the decision of the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.201968/2023 dated 20.02.2024, which (with reference to the Supreme Court decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case and the Full Bench decision in KPTCL's case) held that a litigant invoking Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has the right of forum conveniens before the Tribunal, but that judicial review of a Tribunal Bench's order lies with the Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction that Bench of the Tribunal decided the dispute. The Division Bench (S G Pandit and C.M. Poonacha, JJ.; oral order per S G Pandit, J.) respectfully followed the Coordinate Bench decision and rejected the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the appropriate Bench.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6037-DB WP No. 106898 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.106898 OF 2024 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI DILNAWAZ D.BADAMI S/O. D.A. BADAMI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. PLOT NO.194, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVANAGAR, BELAGAVI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHARANABASAVARAJ C.S., ADVOCATE,

SRI PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE) ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03.

THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (PERSONNEL AND RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY AND SECTION AUTHORITY AND SECTION AUTHORITY (SPORTS QUOTA)) CUM CHAIRMAN, SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-03.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6037-DB WP No. 106898 of 2024

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:

a. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.10.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.7549/2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

b. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE FINAL SELECT LIST DATED 21.10.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A7 , ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNED TO THE NONSELECTION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER BASKET BALL SPORTS QUOTA.

c. ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE FINAL SELECT LIST DATED 21.10.2015 FOR THE POST OF DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER EITHER IN G.M. CATEGORY OR UNDER II-B CATEGORY AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:6037-DB WP No. 106898 of 2024

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 13.10.2023 in Application No.7549/2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties placed on record the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.201968/2023 dated 20.02.2024, wherein it is held at paragraph 20 as follows.:-

“20. However, until there is a decision after reference as aforesaid declaring that the territorial test will not be determinative, this Court must opine that, with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay’s case and the Full Bench of this Court in KPTCL’s case and the settled propositions that cause of action is a bundle of facts and a case arises in every place there is caused of action and that the Tribunal will be the first court of jurisdiction subject to judicial review by a Division Bench of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution, the position that will prevail is that a litigant, who chooses to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 will have the right of forum conveniens, but subject to the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6037-DB WP No. 106898 of 2024

notifications that are issued by the Tribunal to regulate the jurisdiction of its different benches, and as regards the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s order it must be that Division Bench of this Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the concerned Bench of the Tribunal has decided the dispute.”

The Coordinate Bench rejected the writ petition on

the ground of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition before the appropriate Bench. We respectfully follow the above decision of the Coordinate Bench and pass the following order:-

Writ petition stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner

to file fresh writ petition before the appropriate Bench.

Sd/(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

VMB, CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13