IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KAF€i5If§'FAKA_.1?§'I"{3#}1S§%5C§1A..Lx')Fé.'4.)£ " ~ A
BATES THIS THE 3-rd i9AY,-0:«'Ti'..Jut3Lir.' fi2(34€'Z§'1.}f A'
?RE§EN§- ' _u .WE'u
THE HONTSLE MR. P.D. I$i%I§J§.:KA;§Ai§',' ;3UsTicE
V & 2 "
THE I5ION'BLE_1\§R.,JiIéifICiEVV§;{}',$ABHAHIT
vP';«:*':?:T:w} :~i10i.:9g'é0e-52009
1 SR1 Cii;E}LU'VARAYASWAMY N
sf QLATE . V*ARASEMH__EGOWDA
P-;2BsENT_ A-m3R'E__3S"
EJJALAGPIATTAVAVELLAGE
-- » NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDY}"rD,ISTRiCT
5»-."HO3%iABLE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
_ Govfr;. OF KARNATAKA,
V ._"'vt1I:;HA.NA SQUDHA,
'BANGALORE-1. PETITIONER
( I33f 'R' s RAVI,ADVOCA'!'E. )
V' ~ Am)
1" THE SFATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRL SECY
DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORESGOOO 1
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE
3 THE S'I'A'I'I:') ELECTION CO,MMI,SSEO§I,"
RERBYITS SECRETARY, X' _ " "
No.3, CUNNINGHAM;R_OAD,"p_
BANGALORE. V 'L
4 SRI.SA'I'ISH BABU, M.
3/0 NOT KNOWN
MAJOR ~ %
IMV,R.T.O %V i
BAN-GALGRE ($Oi;:'T}}§}. " V
5 ~"PIi"~2AIV\iEZAN',*-: A
S/0 I~iU'SSAIN s:~.A1a,.__ -- I
'!\(§;E_3I) ABQ'"UT'j49T'YEz.%RS,
IMV .R.'F.O'* , '
BELLARY. =...~.:..R£:sPON9EN'1s
fiézy __B.VEERAPPA GA. )
'%,Ti1I.€m*P IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
"'::n3;2a.:..pe,V*'T-Mans IN APPLICATION No.4276/07, PASSED
QB's*--r THE l~ION'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
'1'-g'IB;m~AL;.-- BANGALORE.
" vffhis Writ: petition coming up for Prelinainary Hearing
"01:a_1:bjs clay, SABHAHIT J., made the following.
0 R D E R
This writ petition is fiied by respondent No.3»
Cihsluvarayaswamy, being aggrieved by the oxdar dated
\..)»-
23.1.2003 passed by the Karnataka Adminisfi%:infiVéV_’T#ii)t:;ia1
(heminafier called ‘the Tribunal) »ABangaI01~e,.– f :A;:).p’Eicafiou,
510.4275/2007 in so far as the Tafibumgjivhag
Rs.1,00{)/~ to be deposited t1£e._Ka1na:aic;;
Services Authority at Ba13ga1;)” rex_:I)j,.r_VVthe:V pE:ti1.:i§;>I1t:r herein
within thirty days fi’e;i;1:i’:t*hc’tj:VLé’«o;1iervv'($rfVAvtvhe Tribunal
(23.1.2oos) failing of the said
Authority i$”a{“A;},i:T§)ert3:;t to its recovery as per
law.
2007 was filfid 13y P.Ramzan-
mspondénfi NQ;’5__ bciag aggrieved by the order of
3.-._9__-«E007 in the cadre of Motor Vehiclfi
. in the Transport Department. It was
H = ‘V the app]1ca’ 111: that on 27.6.2005 he was
from Bijapur ta: Bellaxy and new under impugned
V’ ” o2t.tjcr “‘of transfer dated 3.9.2007 he was transfermti to
“‘V $’eiéhanka from Bcllaxy and the impugned transfer has been
‘ made in violation of the Government guidelines and G03
\.»&
dated 22.11.2091 and 6.6.2007 at the
msponden.t–concerned Minister. The
who had no role to play nor Vvfifinsfer T.
but insirumental, playing a_ pivoiéal foriigidnegr
abundance to him at the beiiestl requestef
candidates including _ 2
3. The appiicatiqsi the respondent
State eonteeidiafiggih ‘thai. oifdei’
Rs.1,000/- tn be deposited the Kt-i1*net’a’jl(avv§’$tate Legal
Services Authority at 1iab.ie<to be set aside.
5. We V' appearing for the Advocate who has taken. to issue notice to
the ether’ writ petition is confined to
cha11enegVee._theVVeVtd’_e’:é.*’V.ef in so far as it palates to
iSS1:i€(3_.V:tt) Writ petitioner to deposit cost with the
State Legal Services Authority and no relief is
._ the other respondems.
z ‘lite learned counsel appearing for the petifioxaer
” that though allegations have been made that the
order of transfer has been effected at the instance
“ef the writ petitioner herein who was the Minister for
Transport at the relevant time, the said contention is not at
\,>>
7
all substantiated and no material whatever “it;
that behalf and the Tribunal has also no:s~sg–;§é;s
that the writ petitioner was ré;Asp<):I1§Aii3l"e–s_ is the "
transfer of the petitioner–ag:ap1ica1it"b éforc
in the sbssncs of said findizsg; pxdsrsgrsétisg deposit of
cost is liable to be sss'j ss:de.;" V V .__ _
7. On the othef’ ha11ci,__ Qasztmmcnt Acivocate
submitféd “dcp§ éit'(3f cost has been passed on
the ‘l:iasis.’_ or _ihVs;:r§;dér passed by the Tribzmai in
Appficafiéa % No,4266,f_
. ‘”~’sV_c gvcn caztzful consideration to the
wrthc learned counsel appeanh g for the paras’ s
ésnd sgzrtlfifaised the material on record.
a The material on record would clearly’ Show that the
“ap:;;§ficafion before the Tribunal was filed c g the
U __E0Iflt’3I’ of transfer of the applicant and the fifth nespondent in
the application before the Tribunal though an allegation was
U3
made that the said transfer has been efieeted
of the writ petitioner herein who was pworkifig “ae’_ foe’ . u
Transport, the said. contention is’-,notj”at.:’a}«Iee
is also eiear from the Vtlxetttoxdertvi :
Tribunai that the Txihunal the allegation
of malafides and mdnetaxy against him being
veiy vague lackingexiy cannot be
e13.tert.aineg;1.3._:It of the order that the
the onder following the
ozdervtipesseri No.4266/200′?’ dated 23.1.2093
wherein _c.’:f htzefiefer eifeeting pxetnature transfers
applicant to serve in a place till the
V office is vétiated. There is no fiding given by
t that the transfer was eifected. at the instance of
the *~ eefifioner herein who was working as Minister for
” at the relevant time. The order passed by the
Tfibunal would also Show that the Tribunal has followed the
earlier decision in Applieafion Ne.4~266/ 200? dated
28.1.2008. The said finding of the Tribunal in Applieafion
\.J’
9 .. .
No.4266/2007 % was challenged in r>7efeifio_n
No.92(}2/2009 and the same has been aisposefi o:*vib”y%
dated 3.7.2009 by holding for t1:Le’*’i~eaeenfls~ fl:e:§e;;n Y
that the direction to the writ
before the Tribunal to depesi{“‘the es: of with’
the Karnataka Statfi .=L;:gal ‘S€11;i§£fi;Sl””Auth(‘) Iii}*A svithin thirty
days fiom the date of has been set aside
and thcrcfo;t,: ‘t.hc a§s’sQigpefl the ‘I’ribuna1 in
Appueeaefi’ diepmed of on 28.1.2008 is no
payment of cost in the pm-sent
apyficafiofi ‘foIl£vw:i}1g the reasoning in the said writ
. AVIj¢~;::aifié>i:i, iéb’r:&ho1dVi1i£§t this writ pcfition is also entitled to be
far as it relatss to dirccirion to the Writ
cost of Rs.1,0()0/– with the Kamataka State
Legei1. S2=;1’v°ices Authority at Bangalore thirty days from
date: of order is set aside. Acccnziingky, we was the
foiiowing opdcz”.
The writ petition is allcwed. The direction issued in the
ixnpugned order pasascd by the Tfibunal in Application
\)
10
No.4276/2007 dated 23.1.2003 in so far as it
petitioner herein to deposit cost of Rs.
Karnataka State Legal i AV
within th1rty’ days from the date _'(V)x].’J’d€:3V.”;.f._’3A;:;I1″13.
Member Secrataxy of the take actbn for its Iegxsyezjr Chief 31135'-139 Sd/-' Iudqe if * " II:d.¢x '§'as/No -- Host Yes] No