W.P.NO.4204/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED T!-H8 11:3 28"' pm on amacn '
3EF*0R.E
THE HOFPBLE am. Jus'rIcr;:'1?i."t':2; RAM % _ F.
WRIT PE'I'I'I'ION 190.4204; ofiggué (<::1\T?1~<::1?c;A %
BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY _
B.I{A'I'};HALL1 GRAMA PAh:QHAYA.T . f ~
B.KA'PIHALLiVILIAGE -- \_ .
KASABA I-1081.1
HASSAN TALUK , 1
901,? REPREsEm*.:§D' BY
SRLLOKESH ., 2
8/O.SRE,RANGEGOW[}A__
HASSAN = '
V _ « V ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(BY SR1}: RAv1$§:Ar§I{A R,.ggz3$k; _ .
x . SR1. K: BYAVEGOW .53};
;A(3ED ABQ{_}"i'"66 YEARS
/gage: . KENQ}i_EGOWDA
s1gi.£1.<:fU.MEsH
T_ " 'AGED Ai3OUfI' 43 YEARS
%s/o..$R:.c;:5LUVEG0wDA
2 3. SR_Iv.'FAVf§AAMESH SI-1E'I*I"Y
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S1'»C_)."SRI. SUBBASHETTYI
"/.5, "'sRmEvERAJ
" "AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O.SRI.K'EZSHAVEGOWDA
" " V 5; K. CLBASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
Sf O.SRI.C.HANNEGOWDA
10,
11.
W.P.NO.4204{2008
SRI.C.C}ANGADHARA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
Sf O.SRI.CHALUVE(}OWDA
SRIJ-"'RAIr{ASH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O.SRI.RAJEG(}WDA
SRl.lViCiHAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O.SRI.RAJUSHE'I"I'Y
SKI. RANGEGOW DA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O. HALAGEGOW DA
HONNAVEEREGOWDA @ ::éR}'i~1;vAs"v- I
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS " '
S/O.SR'I.D.RAMEGOWDA
RESPONDENTS 1 Tofu ARE I " ._
RESIDENTS 05' B.KA'I'li_~_i'£aLL-I .v1;..LAG.Is;._ " .
§e;;xsA1;sA .:I?'£,OBI.:If, "EIPISSAN 1'ALUK'
TE;-3 E}§EcLI*1*ii)E '
HASSANTALEJKvI?P.1$I(3%'{AT
Hassmsg V.
,. 3191913 PRESIID-EZNT _
- Haasm TALUKPANCHAYAT
'VA 3 _ ;«u;xssAr§-.._
'.i'1r2§:é"'Iék1::éf§;:v1:s'§:1xI*I'
. "B.KA'm_1ALLz GRAMA PANCHAYAT
B.I£AT.H:IALL1 VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
IQISSAN TALUK 85 DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
'"--f§3Y_';éR_z NARENDRA GOWDA, ADV FOR R-1 TO R-10;
THIS WRIT' PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
-»222%' OF' THE CONSTITUTION OF 114131». PRAYING TO QUASH
THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.I}N.) AND JMFC AT HASSAN ON
I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.339/2007 AT ANNEXURE-G.
W.P.NO.-4204 /Z3008
TPHS WRIT §'E'I'I'I'ION COMING ON FOR' PRELEMIEEARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COUWI' MADE TEE FOLLOWII\EG:.V
ORDER
This writ petition by the …d.efend.?=fi’1t’ itis K ‘
directed against an inter1oe’a1t03’j,%’~ ei’de2′.:”» 7-1:
12.02.2003 (Armexure-G) passed by –
the Court of the Additio1 1a1uV:.. Jtidge… 1311.),
Hassan, in the suit . By the
impugned -I. V’ dd ‘rejected the
appiiicationg’-4 petttioner/ defendant
No.4 t;;1de;~7 d i1(d)r/w. Section 9 and
Seci:io11:VV”!.l”V’>:1′.eVi plaint.
2. _I _have”~ t;AfieV’Iea”tV med counsel appearing for
,.,mev-jiijarties the impugled order at
counsel apmaring for the
petittone;’~ ‘ to Section 295(2) of the Karnataka
Raj Act, 1993, and submits that the suit is
A diaintainaituie for want of sanction from the Jilla
d ..P2tnehayat. The trial Court by referring to the letter of
W.P.NO.4204/2008
the Zilla Panchayath at Axmexured? has rejected the
application ~—- I .A.No.5. It is relevant to refw to.T”‘the
reasoning of the trial Court at para-1 12 of the ”
order, which reads as follows:
‘I2. 131 the present case,
present suit for A. the: V’
permanent
5.1 1.2007, the pzamnfi .¢_dre__ady seemed
sanction fmm “of
Zilla Panchayat dated:
17.10.2QO–.7;.: yin way of
ngentmd that, as
per ._:’2.35VV_i”and e 237 he has no
order towards the
_a:ppee1″ and in the last
mentioned that “$325;
39530 3:523 252.93′ amgn .ef;r>§, gemd
% e’o&$3:.ew ages o%oe~:mer3:”.
A sentence used by the Chief
Cbfficer of Zilla Panchayczt in his
game dated: 17.10.07 itsegf is sufficient to
. L to conclusion that, the plaintiff has
‘already obtained sanction before filmy the
present suit in order to seek the reiief as
claimed in the suit. When all the necessary
31%/’%
W.P.NO.4204/2008
ingredients i.e. exhausted remedy at the firs;
instance before the Chief Executive A
regarding the relief as mentioned :”th,ee_:’ –
plamtw’ and also obtained ”
Chief Executive omcer as ‘d, J T
17.10.07, there is no regdrd£ng’~ é
the maintainability of suit wmo
jurisdiction of this court.
provision of Rajffiot
1993, there ts noaotfiftef the
present sud within
the Jurpsdtcéiaia ms of this
not applicable.
;TenceyA’_’._of j the above said
diocg.ssior:,__.I “hesitation to answer
pomf1V().’1 i?1’V«tIie_:’itonVgrative’. *
}iavéA.oxa11i£iiéd the matter in the light of the
by the Horvble Supreme Court in
L SURYA v/3. mm cnaxomz mu (A112
“so 3044) reiating to exercise of jurisdiction
Articles 226 85 227 of the Constitution of India
VT ” to interlocutory orders iaassed by Courts
‘ ” subordinate to the High Court.
km/A
– 5 –
W.P.NO.4204/’Z2008
4. In my opinion, the impugned order does not
suffer from any error of jurisdiction or error apparent
on the face of the resort! to warrant i11terfe1’enee– ”
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this ‘ >
Articles 226 & 227 of the consutooofiotf hgdig; e ‘k
Petition dismissed.
KM/Ata 5