IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY 01-" DEcEMBE12.,__2'a:o9jV'_T'V. ' 1%
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE _L.NAiiAYAA1.\IA SW_AMY'~ " 1'
CRLIIVIINAL PETITION N£ji."v-753$i'2008 S
BENNEEN:
S.S. KALE
DISTRICT OFFICER, _ ._ ' *
DEPARTMENT. OE-.BAc:K WARD' .
CLASSES MINoRITIE.S;'
DIST. GAI3AG;__';.'_ ._ I
NOW A--T--TMAPJGA'L.(;_).RE;_: '
PETITIONER
(BY SR1.B.v... S'OMAF5LI_}§,'~I5IDVOCATE)
' ,TI'iE STATEI.t)'F.KARNATAKA
I REPRESENTED" BY ITS
'STATE PU'BLjI>c PROSECUTOR,
CIRCU_£'£' BENCH,
DHARWAD.
.. ";3A\[Ai;SAE
* MAI;1I<SAE NADAF,
-AGE. 26 YEARS,
OCC.ADVOCATE,
" "R/0. HARATI,
{Q
TQ. 85 DIST. GADAG.
(BY SRI. PH. GOTKI-IIND1, H.C.G.P. FOR '
(R-2 -- PARTY IN RERSON--RRESENT;._ '
... _
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 4:52 :_OF:'(iR..P...C'-i3'f:<f1'Fi}3Ai
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO--.SET«.A£~3I'DEv_
THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED?,D'IST. jS.E_SSI_ONS
JUDGE, OADAG IN CRL. REVIS-ION PETETION 'Noi~-.65'/2008
DATED O4/10/2008 AND THE ORDER PASSED {BY THE
LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL .J.UDGE"'('J~R'.'DN-;I} 85 JMFC COURT,
GADAG IN PC. No. 203/2006 (CQC.,NO.w29_/2.008) MAY PLEASE
EE SET ASIDE AND ENTIRE"P'I?.C'C»EE3D1i'-lG'S,INITIATED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO. 2WA"O.AINS':§ T'I+IE"~.I'éETITIONER MAY
PLEASE EE QUASHED. _ – *
THIS”‘RETITONJ*§e:’OIvi–INC OiN”‘I«*OR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE? FOL’;…OwI’NG;
» QRDER
v.’i”{i3eV_Ci)r(ier ;i3a’sse_Ol___ir1 Revision Petition NO. 65/2008 dtd.
been chalienged by the petitioner and has
sOu’ght–.,fOr.vSéi_:~ting,aside the Same. Petitioner Submits that the
2nd reis”pOntierit.i has filed a Complaint U/Sec. 200 Cr.P.C., in
“iV;V,1:11C171′..’§h€i1’€’E3.I”T1€’d Magistrate has initiated proceedings against
Detitioner. The petitioner has made an application for
I’
“\
M.)
setting aside the proceedings initiated against him.
had preferred a Revision Petition before the District: .85 VSeVs’siionis”e if
Judge, Gadag, which also came to be d<is1'n-issec3Z_'i_ i
2. The 2115* respondent had rnadejan a.pVp1Aic’a.t’ioir’;:_’iifor’~
Consideration of his case for the iseiiection iforiiLaW
Graduates given by the Cz”O}Vr.’€I”I1I’7.!1’éi’1:t-i.i__:i: f\Iotifieation two
posts were reserved in fax’./ion;-“oi” –‘i’he respondent
No.2 being a person’: beioriging has made an
effort for sele-Ctfon there were two
Quaiified view of the same, the
petitionershoiiiid both persons for the stipend of
Law Graduates, *Despit’e_ tithe’ same, he has selected oniy one
“‘Candida«f,e:__an,d 2fi51″«r.espondent was not selected. Being
iaggrieved .__sarne, he has made objection to ail the
authoritiesi parties to the Committee of Selection. The
‘Commiittee’i.avifa.s headed by Chief Executive Officer, Zilia
Fancifiayatiii President Bar Association, Gadag, District Pubiic
._}?roseciitor, G-adag, Secretary, District Legal Aid Board, Gadag,
‘«.:i3istrict Government Pleader 511% Deputy Commissioner of
Backward Class and Minorities Department, Gadag. ME’*Jef:-
filing the objections with a request for being se1’eeted».@toii ii
stipend for Law Graduate, the same has’-not ~bee.ni iieonsidef1?ed~..
and final list has been displayed.
3. Aggrieved by the same,’ phreferreyd
in Writ No. 26611/2O0V5,,_.whiych” be””aEi’owed on
19 / 01/ 2006, wherein a the petitioner
to consider the Clairn of th§eiiQ”r;ici the High Court
has also set aside.__ of 4:? respondent. After the
judgment”iofiiitheiiifflighifiCoi1rt’,’ petiitionier has selected the 21″‘
respondent, ii
4.V_The iiearnedy ‘;Coi1;;_nse”1 for petitioner submits that the
iipe_titioinie’r oniyi t’h’e”aiuthority for conducting selection, the
i(3omni1’ttee’-toonisitiituted by the Government has not selected the
23¢’ “n=.s’p¢nderi’t.’;_ ..iThe selection made by Committee has been
_ only impiernented by the petitioner. This aspect has not been
I considered by the Sessions Jucjfe in Revision Petition No.
he has made a prayer to set aside the Order passed
Sessions Judge, Gadag.
5. The 2nd respondent–party in person.hasi_:appe’arediiand
submitted that the Notification hasi’iissi;te:fii
petitioner and a classification is al–s:o’~t.rxnadei’by
the selection list has also been hin’i’be_forei whom
only he has made objection? Hence he
submitted that the petitionerwis who
has committed an iillegai_l_–:er1’dr_forzwhicif1.thei§*;d respondent has
been put hasiprieferred a Writ Petition,
which also came. to be ‘dispovs_eiid-.,o£.-in his favour.
e:_;”1*ttt; 2&1′-» reisponszlent submits that, though the
in Committee selection, but petitioner is the competent
autiiiority Notification and also in publishing the
V iiselection list.’ Hence he alone has been made a party. Hence
it ‘petitioner submitted to dismiss his petition.
Ml have heard the arguments made by petitioner and
the 2nd respondent–party in person.
*(
6
8. Et is seen from the materials placed in the petiti.on_rand
I have also gone through the documents produced;”aiong..i__iA}iti;h
the Memo by the 2nd respondent. It is made. the”
petitioner, who is the authority for issztzingéthje “Notifica4tio’niiaiji_ti
representing on behalf of the Depu_ty Con1rnissione–r£,. is. the
competent authority, though _p’etitiV’o~n_e’r H issued
Notification Classifying of Cx3vateg0ry~I
and further though the for selection,
the same has not he said attitude of
the petitioner an offence and
derelictioh of “his’vbeh.aif. f Hence, I find no reasons to
aiiow this ;i5etition.i V
V-i.A€(:C<)'rdi11g1y, piietitioin is dismissed.
1
JUDGE