Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 103470 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PRAKASH S/O. RAMACHANDRA REVANKAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: JUNIOR ENGINEER, R/O. AISHWARYA RESIDENCY, LINGANAIKWADA SAI MANDIR ROAD, KARWAR, TQ: AND DIST: KARWAR.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF KARWAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

¶12

MANJANNA

¶13

E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.03 10:49:06 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KARWAR LOKAYUKTA, POLICE STATION, KARWAR-581301.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER KARWAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MEER BUILDING, KAJUBAG MAIN ROAD, KARWAR-581301.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

¶19

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2024)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 11/06/2024 BEARING NO. KANAPRA/ADALITHA/SHRI.PRA/2024-25/119 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3/THE COMMISSIONER KARWAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KARWAR AND ETC.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, who is working as junior engineer under Karwar Urban Development Authority, has called in question the order dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.3-the Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, Karwar, placing the petitioner under suspension and transferring him from Karwar to Davanagere-Harihar, Urban Development Authority.

¶27

Heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Nandini, B. Somapur, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this

¶29

Court to Section 52 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (“the Act 1987” for short), submits

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

that, the impugned order of suspension passed by respondent No.3 is one without jurisdiction, since the petitioner is drawing salary exceeding ₹1,500/- per month, and the power to suspend him vests only with the authority and not with the commissioner.

¶33

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that, the issuance of suspension order by respondent No.3 dated 11.06.2024 has been issued pursuant to a Government Letter dated 05.06.2024, whereby the commissioner was expressly delegated powers under Section 52(1) and (2) of the Act, 1987. It is therefore contended that the suspension order is traceable to a valid delegation of power and cannot be faulted on the ground of jurisdiction.

¶34

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶35

The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as the junior engineer under respondent No.3-

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

authority. A criminal complaint came to be registered in Crime No.2/2024. Pursuant thereto, the Government by its letter dated 05.06.2024 delegated the power to the commissioner to suspend and in exercise of such delegated authority, respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 11.06.2024, placing the petitioner under suspension.

¶40

For proper appreciation, Section 52 (1) of the Act 1987 reads thus:

¶41

“52. Appointments etc., by whom to be made. - (1) Subject to the provisions of the regulations framed under Section 72 and of the schedule for the time being in force sanctioned by the Government under section 51, the power of appointing, promoting, suspending, dismissing, fining, reducing or granting leave to the Officers and servants of the authority (not being officers in Government service lent to the Authority) shall be exercised by the Commissioner in the case of Officers and servants whose monthly salary does not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees and in every other case by the Authority .”

¶42

A plain reading of the provision indicates that originally the Commissioner is empowered to exercise

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

disciplinary control only in respect of officer and servant whose monthly salary does not exceed ₹1,500/- and in all other cases such power vests with the authority. There is no dispute the petitioner draws the salary exceeding the said amount.

¶46

However, in the present case, Government of Karnataka, Urban Development by letter dated 05.06.2024 has expressly delegated the power under Section 52(1) and (2) of the Act, 1987 to the commissioner. The impugned order of suspension has been passed pursuant to such delegation.

¶47

The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri S.T.Manjunath and others Vs. The State of Government and another¹ ( S.T.Manjunath) is misplaced

¶48

and not applicable to the present facts. In the said case,

¶49

1 W.P.No.50761 of 2014, dated 15.01.2021

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:997 WP No. 103470 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

there was no delegation of power by the Government, and the Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction. In contrast, in the present case, the delegation of power by the Government is evident from the letter dated 05.06.2024, therefore the said decision does not apply to the case of the petitioner.

¶54

In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned order of suspension passed by respondent No.3 is backed by valid delegation of power and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶55

ORDER

¶56

The writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶58

CT:VH

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha W/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Divya W/O Nitay Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitay S/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Renavva W/O Lakshman Madar Vs Kadampur Gram Panchayat

Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao Vs Union of India