High Court Karnataka High Court

A H Nagaraj S/O Honnaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
A H Nagaraj S/O Honnaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  L  % R

BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23*" DA? oswmsa   T 

THE HON'BLE MR. 
WRIT  ($913)
BETWEEN:     

A H-  A
S/oi-Iéan11aiéi1?.j.,   _ .
Wm-king asTcnie:fk30a:e,a:TkT%% L %
Pa113na'PaIi€.hay3fli"«V"*    
T. Narasipunj and R1__:sAiLii»ng. fit

T. rsmsipur Town %

         PETFFIONER

   "lfiarasimha Murlby, Advocate)

 I.  ufiiamamka

 AA  the Secrdtaryto '
"  the Government uffiamataka

Urban Development Defiant
Vikasa Suudha, Bangalore

2. The Director of Municipal
Adm§nist.ra1:ion, V. V. Tower

%



Ambedkar Road
Bangalore~56O 001

3. The fieputy Curnnaissioner
Mysore District, Mysore _

4. The Dimclur of Planning

Urmn development Cell  V

Deputy Cummissitincfis 

Office, Mysore ii i - '
5. Naganna, chs¢:omige2%ii%i;: 'ii

Banrmr   'V   " V' 

T. Na:~a;sipii_r.V'I'::§a§§;» _      RESPONDENTS

(By S§iiii’l’; “Government Advocate)

* i V i -~ aa-siralitw
This Writ ‘Peliiios; under Ariiclcs 225 and 227 of

the Constitution c§f._India”p1*aying to quash we Orders made by
th¢;47ilf’rts;spI3nden_f,’daie;125.6.2008, as per Anm-.xure~B.

Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in

“§_”‘ ciay; the Coast mde the. following: –

OQER

petition coming on for Preliminary Heating is

fiamiiiderai my final disposal.

2. Thobricffzictsofthccascaxcasfothsws: _ 4′ ‘

The petitioner was promoted as a _
Municipal Admiizisttation and he ooi1tinuod- it
Offiocr in the Pattana Pasichayatli, “mg
such, as per the orders ~ ”

Administration, Govcniiiicnt of working,

the Deputy Comi*r:i:ssioiiit’::’,i_o has issued an order

under suspension with
smmediatgtcmmi’mistnagtwiiich is in chaitcngc.

3., contention of the petitioner is that the

‘ .iiei_Iig an ofliccr coming under the administrative control of

‘Municipal Administration, who has appointed him, tho

jurisdiction extends beyond om: district and thcrclbio,

» thc«.._doicgato(i power under which the Deputy Commissioner has

the petitioner undo!’ suspension would not extend to tilt:

i petitioner. In that, the authority who has appointed him has

jsLri::x_iis=!i!s i_*_’>_Y*_*_*_*4.i 933′?» siistziszi whsszc ass his s3s=§s=ga!<?tr»; IE2? Ikpcty

5

Cummissiumar does not this is the sealed posititm juf been

laid down in a judgment of this court in the

BS. vs. Deputy Canmzisaiwnen ‘inf-,l’_

465. The Courage! would also alitaentiixozr, lo’ (j”§2).VaVq.-4):¢V::ia1dtsd
19 Rule 10 of the civiitjgervipes (CCA) Realm, 1957 which

reads as follows:

H Cr3iirni§sir§riéfs– delegated power
ti;tci’Gmup ‘D ‘ service of all

~ = A’ the Kari-aataka judicial
2’i’-ie -1 district under the immediate

” administrdttiie any Qfiicer who does not have

_ }’:¢ii’;*¢fic*tizJi! the limits cf the district vide

” NQtg’ic£i’tic3x:__N2).DPAR 24 3.312 75. dated 11.12.1975.”

‘ would submit that the tsrdcr of suspension be set

kasidc. * j_

ii a “V ‘fW’hile the: Government Advocate, who has cnitsred

~ on behalf of this respondent and has filed objections,

iwiiuld seek to sustain the order of suspension and would place

2