Ravi Ganiger Vs the Union of India

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 ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE CAT IN MA No-149/2025 FILED IN OA No-174/2025 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE CAT TO DISPOSE OF OA No-174/2025 ON ITS MERITS TO MEET.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶32

This petition is by one of the 102 applicants with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal' ] in Application No.174/2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 11.07.2025 [Annexure-B], which in its material part reads as under:

¶33

"Shri Rakshith R., for the Applicants.

¶34

This application has been filed by 102 applicants. But any authorization with the signature of all the 102 applicants has not been filed along with the affidavit of the Applicant No.1. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the applicants is directed to submit the written authorization with the signatures of all the 102 applicants.

¶35

The attention is also invited towards the relief column. It appears from the relief claimed that the relief is related to only Applicant No.22. Therefore, the counsel is directed to move an application for amendment in the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

relief column showing the cause and relief claimed by all the applicants.

¶39

The aforesaid application can be moved before the next date."

¶40

The petitioner and the other applicants, as

¶41

stated before this Court, have together signed a common vakalath in favour of the learned counsel who has presented the application on their behalf, and on behalf of all the applicants, the petitioner has filed an affidavit to support the application under Rule 4(5)(a)¹ of the Central Administrative Tribunal [Procedure] Rules, 1987 [for short, ' the Rules' ]. The petitioner is aggrieved because in terms of the first part of the impugned order, every applicant will have to sign a separate authorization.

¶42

Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, the learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner, canvasses the following on

¶44

1 It is submitted that inadvertently the provisions are wrongly mentioned in the application.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the Tribunal’s direction to file the written authorization with the signatures of all the 102 applicants.

¶48

[a] The only procedural requirement in filing a common application is under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, and this Rule does not stipulate that every applicant must independently file an affidavit to support the application.

¶49

[b] It should suffice if one applicant on behalf of all the other applicants makes an affirmation to support a request for leave to file a common application.

¶50

On the second part of the impugned order, Mr. M. Subramanya Bhat submits that the applicants have a common cause but with the difference that the petitioner is issued with Communication dated

¶51

02.09.2024 rejecting his claim while the representation by the other applicants is not

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

considered, and as such, while presenting the common application [ along with a request for leave to present such common application ] the petitioner and the other applicants have sought for quashing the Communication dated 02.09.2024 and for directions to consider the representation.

¶55

Ms. Anupama Hegde, the learned Central Government Counsel, is heard in the light of the afore. This Court must at this stage observe that the question whether indeed the application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules must be allowed is yet to be considered by the Tribunal and there cannot be any observation on the merits of such application. However, this Court finds considerable force in the canvass that there cannot be a general insistence on individual authorization to support a request for leave to file a common application especially if the Rules do not stipulate such affirmation and the Rules envisage a common application. This Court opines

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

that if the applicants, who have joined in filing a common application, have duly signed a common vakalath in favour of a learned counsel on the terms as contained in the vakalath that should suffice unless the circumstances justify an insistence otherwise. This Court concludes that the insistence on every applicant specifically authorizing the filing of a common application may visit a rigour that may not be justified in all circumstances.

¶59

If this Court opines thus as regards the petitioner's first grievance, and insofar as the other grievance, this Court opines that the merits of the case, as presented before this Court on why the relief is fashioned the way it is in the application, must be considered by the Tribunal on merits. If the Tribunal, in the final analysis, is of the view that the pleadings are not complete and that the relief cannot be moulded as would be permissible in law, will have to

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41240-DB WP No. 25349 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

take an appropriate decision in the light of that opinion. As such:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

[a] The petition stands disposed of.

¶65

[b] The Tribunal is called upon to decide on the application filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules independent of separate written authorization from every applicant to file the common application and to consider the merits of the prayers as sought for in the light of this Court's observation and subject to its orders on the leave for filing common application.

¶66

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶67

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶68

SA ct:sr

Ravi Ganiger v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Ganiger v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax , Vs M/S Altair Engineering Inc.

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Vs M/S. Kanti Sweets

B S Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Siddananjaiah

Smt. Ranganayaki N D Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Manjunath Tavane