IN THE HIGH coum 01+" KAR}€ATAKA-'_4kf;_vv'B}§N{§}XI;{}RE..A A'
DATED THIS THE 3rd 1;*)AY?'i335
P'1?§L%.ENTA"' V A
THE HONBLE MR.' RD. 'CH'I.E)F,:IUSTICE
THE l}I'QxN'BLE 'flifég.JUsf;1fifi:'.xf:§"éABHAH1';'
Ma.9g,g1;2oo9
"
1 SR1 CE-ELVUVARAYASWAMY N
si OLATE. jr:A1eAsiM'§LiEGowDA
'PRESENT A;;);;>REs;s"
EJ'éALAGI~i_AT'TA)fiLLAGE
-- » FNAGAMANGALA TALUK
» MANDYEV I.)1§'rR1c:'r
i"H0%N¢ BL]-3 MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
_ Goxzt-.. QF KARNATAKA,
V _j*ef1L>HAr»:_jA SOUDHA,
'BANGALoRE»1. PETITIONER
(By ifs RAVLADVOCATE. )
V' ~ mu
. ......-..~----..
" I' THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRL SECY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE
3 THE STATE ELECTION COMMESSION; ~. «.
REP.BYI'I'S SECRETARY, 'L
No.3, CUNNINGHAM iaam, % ' ' %
BANGALORE. * J
4 sRI.R.B.PoLICg '§?A'I'IL, V u
S/O NOT KNOW'?-?'T'~ '-- . '
MAJOR " .
IMV,R.T;0__ : _ -
GULBARGA.
5 -.D.ILI"P~-G.N?EE?HE'NDRAKAR,..
3/ 0' i.5PJ'E C~'.rAi'éAFiA'i'HI -RAO,
'r. AGE"£) ABfiOU'ii49.TYEARs,
V. "
H'0sP§;'r." _ " , f;~..REsPoN1:)ENTs
Sri: B.vEs:§5péA GA. )
7i'.HIS'«wP IS FILED PRAYING 'I'() QUASH THE ORDER
:I§'1'v.23v..,;;e3,..T_Nm3E IN APPLICATION 530.4270/07, mssmn
" _ gy, "Trig '~.,'*Hc+N*I3LE KARNATAKA ABMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL? EZANGALORE.
" Writ petition comm' g up for Prclnn-' 3.9.' ary Hearm' g
.. 0:; this day, SABHAHIT J., made the following.
ORDER
This writ petition is flied by respondent No..’3–~
Cheluvarayaswamy, being aggrieved by the order datw
\?>
28.1.2008 passed by the Kaznataka “f’.i”v1′.1.’.i131V1s.-11
(hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal) Banga1orc’,’-.:in.
No.4270/ 2007 in so far as the mbunal ms; dff
Rs.1,000/– to be deposited in
Services Authority at fhc__ here-i;n
within thirty days fl1e”tl}e: <:¥it'1erv.of..*iEI1c Tribunal
(234.2003) failing vvw2"hi.".;h.t'12.¢ of the said
Authority is recovery as per
V'~.NVo.4270/ 2007 was filed by Dilip
{§f;§M¢1;f1véngira1cEéi'*:2:.3pondcnt No.5 herein being aggrieved by
' Uthej 't:_ransfer dated 3.9.2007 in the cadre of Motor
. " (MVI) in the Transport Departmeamt. It was
by the applicant that on 27.6.2005 he was
.. AA fmm Gadag to Bagalkot but on 6.5.2006 itself,
f1é was transferred from Gadag to Balkot and then, on
31.5.2006 transferred from Bagalkot to Dhaxwad and again
he was transfmrred from Dhaxwad to Hospet on 24.5.2007
\/*
and now under impugned order of T.
he was transferred 'to Haveri flnae.
transfer has been made ~*s/z;i;o}aiA:.i"csz1a of ciltb
guidelines and oos 'dated '22.V"i'1..e2oo_1 fi,6.vv:;§2007 at the
instance of the Minister. The
Writ pefin'onerAhereinA1rho::b=igiu;§o_blay nor say in the
scheme a pivotal role
for mo;;e$r'=.t1Vov'%i2;" at the behest] request
of his iaoiuding fifth mspondent.
3.x’ “”fi«’,l%1e* abpfioaiiozi was resisted by the respondent-
e:o:;_tendAifigvv..that order of transfer has been passed in
‘ law afier following the procedure and the
H ” mar” ubsfer does not ca}! for intezference in the
afipucafidfib. The Tribunai by order dated 28.1.2008 held that
H ” similar circumstances, application No.42fi6[2007
of by the Tribunal on 28.1.2008 wherein fxequent
‘”fz*a;:1sfer has to be made, the some have been set asfie by
imposing cost of Rs.1,00()/~ payable by the third respondent
\/*’
by order dated 3.9.2007 and following ,e;.-.2 _:
Tribunal held that the hnpugneci=,A:order é»f i35:’!;i_e’}3-3eA«to ”
be set aside and further d;’:eeted “the
petitioner herein to deposit Karnataka
State Legal thirty
days from the date Which, Member
Secretary off’ take action for its
mcovery .
:’b~’y.the order of the tribunal in so
far as Lie1a’ce:s t4oV Aeiiieefion issued to the Writ petitioner to
cpst ef/~ to be deposited in the Karnataka
‘ Senrices Authority at Bangalore within thirty
* eiagfs fhe date of the order, this writ petition is filed
that though the third respondent was made a
.. AA the application by name, it has not been moved that
impugned ortier of transfer was vitziated by any conduct
” or that the order was passed at the instance of the writ
petifioner. Baseiess allegations have been matie against the
V’
writ petitioner herein and no finding L.
even in the absence of any :%_1_’1a’t: ”
was vitiated, order of v-me e*on§lu<_»f
of the writ petifionexj herein,ee'_%?i"_ae_ Tgjbuigai justified
in imposing cost of the Tribunal in
so far as it deposit cost of
Rs. 1 ,0O(} State Legal
Services:Ag1th'cV;:;1(.jiVty–V'–¢'1t ifable to he set aside.
We Ieamed counsel appearing for
the pefificfier Government Advocate who has
§2ii'é:e1{1._eAV.1:1<:11_:ice fer «State. it is unnecessary to issue notice to
' ,. t.heA 'evihefr-'vefespondents as the writ petifion is confined to
" .;:e'aue:;g:a order of the Tribunal in so far as it Ielates to
essued to the writ petitioner to deposit cost with the
.. " State Legal Services Authoxzity and no relief is
for against the other respondents.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that though allegations have been made that the
\.;>”
impugned order of transfer has been efl”ected..’:§;it
of the writ petitioner herein V-who .’V£?’a+-<3' j
Transport at the relevant time, fit
all substantiated and no
that behalf and the z.1tet'g:j:ven,Eany finding
that the writ for causing the
tzansfer of 33,. the Tribunal and
in the directing deposit of
costtjs -h
iearned Government Advocate
of deposit of cost has been passed on
t "of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in
I 'Ap;sxi;éa:i§n",e:xzo'.4256/ 2007.
u ,. V We have given careful consideration to the
2 » eontetzfion of the learned ceunsei appearing for the parties
scrutinised the material on record.
K)
10
the date of order is set aside, 1
following order:
The writ petition is The
impugned order passed in ?Appiication
No.42’70/ 200′? dated 1.’. it directs the writ
petitioner hemin ,0O0/ — with the
Kaxnatakgg at» Bangalore
within {he onzler failing which the
Mezfiitieg said. Authority is at liberty to take
actio1i’f9;; its law is set asidtg.
%%%%% -4 – Chief jiustice
Sd/-~
Judge
A’ ‘AA,”‘1~miéx: Yes] No
Web Host; Yes/No