Allowed

Sri. Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2025WP/1596/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions filed by a Joint Director permitted to complete his statutory tenure after the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal incorrectly upheld an order by the BMRDA Commissioner relieving him from his post at STRRPA.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by KSAT set aside; order dated 08.11.2024 by second respondent quashed; petitioner directed to be continued/reinstated with full 3-year tenure.

Sri. Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 1596 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶10

C/W

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 4805 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶12

IN WP No. 1596/2025

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. VENKATA DURGA PRASAD KUNCHALA S/O LATE R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY (STRRPA) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, LRDE BUILDING BENGALURU-560 052 (PREVIOUSLY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF) AND RESIDING AT NO 601/1, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, III STAGE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, FOR SRI. VISHWANATHA BHAT A, ADVOCATES)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶22

THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD LRDE BUILDING BENGALURU-560 052

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;

¶25

SRI. VIVKE REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W

¶26

SRI. K.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.01.2025 IN A.No-5134/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT AS JOINT DIRECTOR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF STRRPA BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶28

IN WP NO. 4805/2025

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SRI. VENKATA DURGA PRASAD KUNCHALA S/O LATE R. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶32

CUM MEMBER SECRETARY SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD PLANNING AUTHORITY (STRRPA) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, LRDE BUILDING BENGALURU-560 052 (PREVIOUSLY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE (BMTF) AND RESIDING AT NO 601/1, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, III STAGE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI. M. NAGARAJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 IN A.No5388/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KSAT AT BENGALURU AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE APPLICANT AS JOINT DIRECTOR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF STRRPA BENGALURU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶42

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and

¶44

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

¶47

These two writ petitions are filed by the same

¶48

individual seeking the following relieves in both the writ petitions:

¶49

Prayer in WP.1596/2025:

¶50

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 in A No.5134/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-'D' and to allow the said Application on the file of the Hon'ble KSAT at Bengaluru.

¶51

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to continue the applicant as Joint Director-cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity; and

¶52

(iii)Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶55

Prayer in WP.4805/2025:

¶56

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 in A No.5388/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru vide Annexure-B and to allow the said Application on the file of the Hon'ble KSAT at Bengaluru.

¶57

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondent to continue the Applicant as Joint director-cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity; and

¶58

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶59

The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions

¶60

under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in Application Nos.5134/2024 and 5388/2024, whereby the petitioner challenges the order dated 08.11.2024 issued by the second respondent, relieving him from the post of

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶63

Joint Director-Cum-Member Secretary of the Satellite town, Ring Road Planning Authority (STRRPA) and repatriating him to his Parent Department.

¶64

Factual matrix

¶65

The petitioner is a post graduate in Urban and Regional Planning and a holder of a Post-Graduate Diploma in Geographic Information System. He entered the service of the Government of Karnataka as Assistant Director of Town Planning on 25.09.2004. He specifically asserts that by dint of his meritorious service, he was promoted as Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning in the month of July 2011 and subsequently promoted as Joint Director of Town and Country Planning in the month of September 2015.

¶66

It is stated, that on 17.02.2023, the first respondent i.e., State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 4-C (3)(ii) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (“the Act”), issued an order transferring and posting him as a Joint Director-

¶67

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶68

cum-Member Secretary of STRRPA, consequent upon the transfer of the erstwhile incumbent i.e., one Sri. Gopalakrishna, to some other place.

¶69

It is further stated that, the said STRRPA was constituted vide notification dated 24.06.2016 under Section 4-B (1) of the Act, carving out certain planning areas from the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA), thereby severing any administrative control of BMRDA over the said post. It is alleged that, however, in a wholly arbitrary and ultra virus action, the second respondent (Metropolitan Commissioner, BMRDA), issued the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 purportedly relieving the petitioner from STRRPA and repatriating him to his Parent Department. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the KSAT, which, vide the impugned order dismissed his application compelling him to file these writ petitions.

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶71

Arguments of the petitioner's counsel

¶72

Following are the vehement submissions of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner:

¶73

Jurisdictional infirmity in the repatriation order:

¶74

The second respondent lacked competence to issue the order dated 08.11.2024, as the post

¶75

of Joint Director-cum-Member Secretary, STRRPA, should transferred out of BMRDA's administrative purview vide Government Order dated 20.07.2021.

¶76

Section 4-D(2) of the Act vests exclusive power

¶77

in the State Government to alter the term of office of a Member Secretary.

¶78

The KSAT erred in law by upholding the second respondent’s order, despite patent lack of jurisdiction.

¶79

Statutory tenure protection under extant Rules

¶80

Rule 4 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, prescribes a 3 year term for

¶81

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶82

members of a Planning Authority, commencing from the date of appointment.

¶83

The petitioner’s tenure, which commenced on 17.02.2023, could only be curtailed by the Government and not by the second respondent.

¶84

The KSAT failed to appreciate this statutory safeguard, rendering its order perverse and incompetent.

¶85

Non application of binding precedent

¶86

The petitioner relied on Dr.Patil Shashi V/s. State of Karnataka (WP.104846/2022) , wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that transfer cannot be a substitute for disciplinary action in cases of alleged misconduct.

¶87

The KSAT mechanically referred this precedent but failed to apply its ratio, thereby committed a gross error of law.

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶90

Malafide and arbitrary action

¶91

The repatriation order was issued without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

¶92

The KSAT has overlooked this fatal flaw, despite the petitioner’s unblemished service record.

¶93

Arguments of counsel for the respondents:

¶94

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,

¶95

sought to justify KSAT’s Order on the following grounds:

¶96

The second respondent, as a relieving authority of the petitioner was competent to repatriate him.

¶97

The petitioner's subsequent posting (pursuant to the impugned order), extinguished his right to challenge.

¶98

The Government Order dated 17.02.2023 did not exquisitely designate the petitioner as Member Secretary under Section 4(C)(3)(ii).

¶99

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶100

We have given our anxious consideration to the

¶101

submissions of both sides. Meticulously perused the records.

¶102

Analysis and findings:

¶103

I. Jurisdictional competence of the second respondent

¶104

The core issue is whether the second

¶105

respondent (BMRDA Commissioner) had the authority to relieve the petitioner from STRRPA?

¶106

A plain reading of the Government Order dated 20.07.2021 reveals that, the post of Joint Director

¶107

was permanently shifted from BMRDA to STRRPA. Consequently, the second respondent ceases to have any administrative control over the said post. Section 4-D(2) of the Act unequivocally states as under:

¶108

"(2) The Chairman and members of a Planning Authority constituted under Section 4-C, except those nominated by local authorities shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. The representative of a local authority who is a

¶109

12 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶111

member of that authority shall cease to be a member of the Planning Authority when he ceases to be a member of the local authority concerned."

¶112

Thus, the power to alter the petitioner’s

¶113

tenure clearly vested solely with the Government, and not with the second respondent.

¶114

The finding of the KSAT, that the second respondent could repatriate the petitioner is contrary to statutory provisions and hence unsustainable in law. Merely because, the petitioner has joined his next post and hence, cannot challenge the impugned order of his repatriation is untenable. The KSAT has not applied its judicious mind with regard to the said aspect.

¶115

Sofaras statutory tenure under Rule 4 is concerned, this Rule 4 of the Karnataka Town Planning Authority Rules, 1965, mandates that:

¶116

" The term of office of the chairman and members of the Planning Authority shall be 3 years and shall commence from the date of appointment" .

¶117

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶118

As per the facts pleaded by the petitioner, his letter of appointment is dated 17.02.2023, and it did not stipulate any truncated tenure. Hence, as per the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was and is legally entitled to hold office till 16.02.2006, unless validly curtailed by the Government. The KSAT has failed to consider this mandatory rule which vitiates its order.

¶119

There is a violation of judicial precedent. In Dr.Patil Shashi supra , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that "Transfer cannot be a punitive measure. If allegations of misconduct exist, disciplinary proceedings must be initiated. The omission on the part of the KSAT to apply this binding precedent despite acknowledging it constitutes a grave error of law".

¶120

Complaints under protest does not waive rights as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. The KSAT erroneously has held that, the petitioner’s acceptance of a subsequent posting ( under

¶121

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶122

protest ) defeated his challenge and this finding is not sustainable. The Apex Court in the Tamil Nadu

¶123

Agricultural University and Anr.etc. v/s. R.Agila etc, (arising out of SLP (C) no.13075/2022) in para 4 of the decision observed as under:

¶124

"4. Under such terms and conditions of service, an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer" .

¶125

Upon careful examination of the entire

¶126

factual matrix and legal frame work, several critical aspects emerge. First, the Government Order dated 20.07.2021 effected a complete transfer of the concerned

¶127

post from BMRDA to STRRPA. This transfer was not merely administrative but had substantive legal

¶128

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶129

consequences, completely divesting BMRDA of any authority over the position. Secondly, the statutory scheme under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the rules framed there under create a specific tenure protection for appointed members, which cannot be arbitrarily curtailed. Thirdly, the principles of natural justice demand that any action affecting a Government servant's tenure must follow due process, which is consequentially absent in the present case.

¶130

Therefore, the impugned order suffers from multiple legal infirmities. It fails to properly interpret the statutory provisions governing the petitioner's appointment and tenure. It incorrectly upheld the jurisdiction of the second respondent, despite clear evidence of transfer of administrative control. The Tribunal neglected to properly apply binding judicial precedents that are directly relevant to the case. These cumulative errors render the Tribunal’s Order legally unsustainable. In that view of the matter and the above

¶131

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶132

analysis, Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside by declaring that, the order dated 8.11.2024 issued by the second respondent is declared ultra virus and without legal effect. Consequentially, the respondents are directed to reinstate/continue the petitioner as Joint Director-cumMember Secretary of STRRPA and permit him to complete his full statutory tenure of 3 years from the original date of appointment.

¶133

Resultantly, We pass the following:

¶134

ORDER

¶135

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed .

¶136

(ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2025 in application No.5388/2024 on the file of KSAT, Bengaluru, is set aside. Likewise, the impugned orders dated 13.01.2024

¶137

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in application

¶138

No.5134/2024 and 5388/2024 are set

¶139

17 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:12264-DB WP No. 1596 of 2025 C/W WP No. 4805 of 2025

¶141

aside. The application Nos.5134/2024 and

¶142

5388/2024 are favoured.

¶143

(iii) The order dated 08.11.2024 issued by the

¶144

second respondent is declared as ultra virus and without any legal effect and therefore quashed.

¶145

(iv) Consequentially, the respondents are directed to continue/reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Joint Director-cumMember Secretary of STRRPA and permit him to complete full tenure of 3 years from the original date of his appointment.

¶146

(v) Costs made easy.

¶147

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶148

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶149

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Venkata Durga Prasad Kunchala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. C Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R v Jathanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajashekaraiah K v Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer-I

Sri Parashuram Shinnalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chaitra M S Vs Principal Secretary

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Kalyani Tech Park Private Limited