IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BAm£cm'LQR.g
DATE9 THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUL? A-
PRESENTH_
THE HON'BLE MR. 13.1). DINAKAIVQM',
THE HON'B§E V.(.?};t"$%Kl3":'I"Igf§V!;.*II'T
wan' PE'?f'i':or€ fizmg
BETWEEN: *
1 sR;'C}»:%ELuvARA¥AswAMY N
3;'OLA':*3"-:s;ARAS.15;i--H'EG0wDA
PREsE1~:T'Ajm:>'R5,ssw~"
Ei;1.,IALgxc§HAI'In_§§1LLAGE
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
'MANDYA.DIS'1'RIC'T
" BLE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
% {T§()\!'i'.., 01:' KARNATAKA,
2. *-yIm;AN,A SOUDHA,
mNc:.gALoRE~1. PE'I'I'I'iONER
(By -Es RAVLADVOCATE. )
~ :'5..ND":"
V i" THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS FRI. SECY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BAN GALORE~56000 1
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE
3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMLSSION; «. '
1239.3? rrs sacarmmy, ' " T ' '
No.3, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BANGALORE. A
4 SRI.K.V.SHIVA._P¥x'ASAD V ~
S/0 NOTKNOWW-if" * V '
MAJOR " ._
mv, R."f;{)__ . _ -
YADGeiRl"ix,-'
s/ 0J'm.TE .c}1E4NNAPPA,
AGED A;3j0UT.Tb4':2T.TYEA§zs,
H'0sPE'1'." _ ; - _ "_,~..REsP0NDENTs
Sri: B:v"rE.Ei§AP1;%A GA. )
""i:3H:S«wP IS FILED PRAYTNG T0 QUASH THE ORDER
Ifi'-i'i«£?u-l'8"t>J..v'08'~.V.N'E.fi.]:)E IN APPLICATION NC}.42?3/07, PASSED
".331, "'*m.;E v._'~i~1oN'BLE KARNATAKA AUMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL; BANGALORE.
This Writ petition coming up for Pteliminaxy Hearing on
" day, SABHAHIT J., mada the following.
0 R D E R
This Writ petition is filed by respondent N03-
Cheluvarayaswamy, being aggieved by the order dated
\..J’>
G
28.1.2008 passed by the Karnataka
(hereinaficr cailed ‘the Tribunal)
140.4273; 2007 in so far as the Tiiiifinalv hasi ._ “tVé9sf«of
R$.1,000/~ to be deposited in
Sexvices Authority at t£1e’ hercili
within thirty days finm mc..aa1§:”._gf u1V§i1cij’or¢;«i’é’rV’_’c>f”ti1c Tribunal
(231.2003) failing of the said
Authority is_ atfibex-t_:g%V”t£§ rm!’ its nccovery as per
law}.
2.”%App1ic¢:ji¢n_}%515.4273/2007 was filed by Raju s.-
N€).5…..h-smin being aggririvcd by the order of
~ fiansfgr. am 3.9.2007 in the cadre; of Motor Vehicle
in the Transport Department. It was
by the applicant that on 27.6.2005 he was
, A’ flansféned from Koppal to Yelahanka and again. he was
: £I”€-fi’1SfC1T€:(I from Yclahanka to Hospet on 4.6.2607 and now
under impugned order of transfer dated 3.9.200′? he was
Bansferred to Gulbaxga fmm Hospet and the impugncd
\,/X
transfer has been made in viqiatien oft _
guidelines and Gas dated 22.11,2031.Ema._6;5:;’2Q{iE2eee.egie1.the .
instance of the third 1espei1r1.ent;c;31tce1neflHA Thee
writ petitioner herein who mic net’ say in the
scheme of transfer ‘playing a pivotal role
for money flown in ahe.9r1anceAAtp ‘the behest] request
of respondent.
vfl=;ras-.ze’;$isted by the mspondent
Statevv.AcontenVéE’vi;m’fg-~ of transfer has been passed in
aceordafxeet “after following the procedure and the
‘of tréénafer tiaes not call for interference in the
‘a§:%plie.’et1ieItL”TI_Je Tribunal by order dated 28.1.2008 held that
._ circumstances, application No.4»266/2007
by the Tribunal on 28.1.2008 wherein frequent
A. transfer has to be made, the same have been set aside by
” Viiujptosing cost of Rs.1,000/~ payable by the third respondent
Fiby order dated 3.9.2007 and following the said order, the
Tzibunal held that the impugned order of transfer is liable to
\/”
be set aside and further dimctcc; that séspcyndegit-~ _
petitioner herein to deposit Rs.v}_,OCi)f.-it ika 2
State Legal Services Authority at
days from the date of them 1 tvhioh, Member
Secretary of the iie .§ibei’t;f’~to take action for its
recovery as perjaw. ‘
4. of the tribunal in so
far to the writ petitioner to
deposit “be deposited in the Karnataka
State e at Bangalore Within thirty
dgzyfs from tide of the order, this writ petition is filed
though the third respondent was made a
I ‘V by name, it has not been proved that
the order of transfer was vitiated by any eondact
nor tlzrat the order was passed at the instance of the writ
-jretijtioner. Baseiess allegations have been made against the
.. petitioner herein and no finding has been given aad
even in the absence of any finding that the impugned order
K?
was vitiated, order of txansfer is vitiated
of the writ petitioner herein. The W}3s._.:1iot..
in imposing cost and therefore, order of
so far as it directs the 1 to cost of
Rs.1,()0O/- to be depo3_ited’.’t$ofo1%é:’ State Legal
Sexvices Authority at is set aside.
5. appearing for
the iefaiznefittvtiottemment Advocate who has
takexicinotice It is unnecessaxy to issue notice to
the other-«its the writ petition is confined to
thetioidexof the Tribunal in so far as it relates to
‘ Vivvéiiifectjéota iiséued to the writ petitioner to deposit cost with the
. ” Legal Services Authority and no relief is
against the other respondents.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that though allegations have been made that the
impugned order of aansfcr has been effecteé at the instance
of the writ petitioner herein who was the Minister for
w’>
7
Transport at the relevant time, the said contefifiozt ia at
all substantiated and no mate1j’al’w}3,att%’§ve1jVl5&/ 2007.
_ have given careful consicleration to the
‘l {if the learned counsel appearing for the parties
aad. the material on record.
9. The material on reconi would cimrly Show that the
application before the Tribunal was filed challenging the
order of transfer of the applicant and the fifih respondent in
\?>
the application before the Tribunal though an was
made that the said transfer has been efleeted-«eeit
of the Writ petitioner herein whoVWés’*worf;ing sis for’ T AV
Transport, the said oontenfioo
is also ciear from the of sjby
Tribunal that the Tfihpnal “ob§e;.veo,’ allegation
of malafides and against him being
very vague and cannot be
the perusal of the order that the
‘I’ribu1ia_1 i1as’ impugned order foIIow1n’ g the
onfier .i§1’Ap;§:ic.§tion No.-4266/20(}7 dated 23.1.2003
. ” :'”o1j:.:ier Wtransfer eflecting premature transfexs
the applicarat to serve in a place ti}! the
£1-sv11aI_.iet::1;1jex~e of omce is vitiated. There is no finding given by
A the that the txansfer was efiected at the instance of
petitioner herein who was working as Minister for
Tmnsport at the relevant time. The order passed by the
Tribunal would also show that the Tribunal has followed the
earlier decision in Application No.4266/ 2007 dated
\/*’
23.1.2003. The said finding of gas; »”_l_’z*ib1::i2″a}” Jippiigatifzii A
No.4266/200′? was chaiiefigcd
No.9202/ 2009 and the
dated 3.7.2009 by holding therein
that the dimctionv petVitioner-thixd
respondent before tlm… the cost of Rs.
1,900/~ % ‘mgéd Services Authority
within iaassing of the order has
‘:3ecn Y :;~;étv reason assigned by the
‘F1ibu}i1a§ “if: «No.-4265/2007 disposed of on
28, E ‘i.J.~:~.._:i1(:«V1§:)n§£2rV&éi..rai]ab}c for ondcring payment of cost
V’ _ .£t1c:”pxtis§:nt and followm g the masoning in the
we hold that this writ petition is also
‘efififlefi allowed in so far as it relates to direction to the
wI1’t”@’€;itioncr to cost sf Rs. 1,000] – with the Karnafaka State
A ‘ _ ‘ Services Authority at Bangalore Within thirty days from
;thc date of onier is set aside. Accordingly, we pass the
following order:
\)»
10
The writ petition is allowed, Thcédhzffiofiitfié’ _
impugned order passed by tide’
No.4273/ 200? dated 28.1.i’§.’_)C8.in as cifl 1_t-:cts file gvxii
petitioner hemin to dt:posift__4_L (VV::o:s_1:’..of with the
Karnataka State at Bangalore
Within thirty days mm failing which the
Member (Jaf: t’hf€;;_ is at liberty to take
actioo aside. wk,
Sdgl-D
Chiei Justice
H’ …..
/. o 3"d'3e maggc; yes) No ., A' 'iiéfigb Host: Yes} No