High Court Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Mallikarjun Shivalingayya … on 1 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Mallikarjun Shivalingayya … on 1 February, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
W.P. N0. 62670/2009 (S~R.ES)
MISC.W.Nos.60i97/2010
& 61508/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF' FEBRUARY, 
BEFORE _.J  "
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE   1%

WP. No. 52670/20459 Ié--'HHs«I Ame   '

MESC.W.Nos.6019'7 /201,0  61508/'2Qo9 

Between:

1

 '''' *IIvn,$t:7.uc1fi.:e,;IW, 'Be'lgaur'rI*vD--ivision

The State 0fKarnata1I;~I;~c:oI:-j of ,P1:I.b1iQ\'I.,,T3_ V' ' "

B¢Ig;I,I;n3  PETITIONERS

(By   {\"_ B  PISA)

éU}L_D_i

5 2 Z\/iaiiikarjiifiéhivalingayya
 _V  '«.HiIfCm_ath
  (lead by his LRS

. .(é1'}'I--.V.SIr1antabai

W/C Makkikarjun Hirernath
{:1 yrs, OCC: heusehoid work
I"; I) Yadwad, Taiuk: Gokak
Bcigaum District.

(b) Semganabasayya
S»/C Maiiikarjun Hiremath
32 yrs, r/0 Yadwad, Taluk: Gokak
ficrkgaum District.



W.P. No. 62670/2009 (S-RES)
MiSC.W.Nos.60!97/2010
& 6E 508/2009

(c; Shivakurnar
S/o Maliikarjun Hirernath
30 yrs, r/o Yadwad, Taluk: Gokak
Belgaum District.

2 The Chairman/Secretary
Viciyavardhak Sangh   -
GNS Composite P.U.Co11ege

Yadwad, Taluk: Gokak   it 

(By Sri V M Sheelavant, Aciy for R--1iit-023 . _ .V
Sri Sangrarn S Ku1karni,'"Adv for R4)  . 

This WP is filed under'Articles_*226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India,VV--prayingto qtiasth-[the order passed
by the _ Pr1.i)ist;Judg_e«: .._8z,W_'v._VEA'i", Belgaurn in
E.P.No.61.6j/20:34Vdat-ed1;2V~9~2OO6' Vida' Annexure--D in so

far as pe.ti'tion__e'r2is'_Vr:ori.ce_rr'ied';* 

  __is.fi1ed under Section 151 CPC
r/W Articles 1 226.. '81, "22.'? " of the Constitution of India,
prayingito' pass an 'o_rderT'for early hearing.

1  :5-p/Iisr';.W.Eii15"O8/2009 is filed under Section 151 CPC

1' Fr,/w _Ar.tic.1c"=--226 of the Constitution of India, praying to

 VS,_t'VEi3r i'AVi.o"peration of judgment passed by the
' ._ Pr1y;Dis«t.f_gJ:§1ci~ge 85 EAT, Belgaum in E.P.No.616/2004 dated
2-9--2QO6gvide Anexi.ire--D in so far as the petitioner is

conce.rned'; pending disposal of the writ petition.

This WP and Misc.W.Nos.60197/2010 85

it 'rAV_ii61--5iO8/12009 coming on for orders this day, the Court
;made the following-



w.i>. No. 6267012009 (S-RES)
MiSC.W.i\Eos.60i97/2030
& 6ISG8f2009

ORDER

By consent of learned counsel appearivnglon

both sides, the writ petition is heard on me_rfit’s’an~d _

being disposed of by this order. 9

2. This writ petition by the:4St::_tate:’of

directed against the orderdated i4~’9§i2QOoiV:(An’n.e;;1ireei

D) passed in Execution / The
Execution Petition the judgment
dated 13~8–2(}t)’3_.’pas’sied’by Appeilate
Triburiah K.P.E.I.Appeal
tphnewpetitioner is that in the
absenicepii V on it in the aforesaid

judgment pay theivamount due to deceased Sri

éihiiizalingayya Hiremath who was

Master with respondent No.2 ~–

Institi,itioiri~’;ithe Executing Court has erred in law in

.. the petitioner also liable to pay the amount.

i “‘._iH’ov’vever, this submission is contested by the iearned

Vcounsel appearing for the respondents.

‘zgkijg

W.P. No. 62670/2009 (S=-RES)
MlSC.W.Nos.6{}l97/2010
& 615083009

3. Therefore, the only question that arises_,__for

determination is as to whether any liability is

the petitioner– State of Karnataka to pay 1 V’

due to the aforesaid deeeased

Shivalingayya Hirernath underi:’the’–_lj.ndgn;.ent.

i3–8–2oo3 passed by the

4. Learned V spetiifically
invited my attentionaltoliggtheil tV’o11_:l(:)~:a,’i’ifr..v-i’.”9ai_ir,i_’jobservations
made by the at para

26 of its jiidgrn’en.t”‘ivhi(‘}hs as: under:

……….. .. As already
V ” discas.s;ed'”~ab’ov’e, there are indications
to_sho_w1that_.for the relevant period, the
“rnanagerr}.-ent has received grant from
the “–Ed_ttcation Department also. When
such being the case, I am of the opinion
V._tha_t primarily the management is
9’ responsible for the emoluments for
i j ufhich the appellant is entitled and they
‘~f’may seek for reimbursement of the
same from the Government in the event
of they are not provided with the
required grant. ……… ..”

5. A perusai of the aforesaid observations wouid

clearly indicate that respondent No.2 herein has to

WP. N0. 62670/2009 (S~RES)
MlSC.W.N0s.60E97/ZOEO
& 61508/2009

first pay the amount due under the judgment and

after making the payment, it is at liberty to

reimbursement from the State Governmeiit

required grant was not provided»-.tQ

impugned order fixing the liability

liable to be set asider Ae§:Qrdingl.y,’ the
following order: p g l V l l

The impugned insofar as
it relates to liable to pay
the -set aside. The Writ
petitielnlll ltillllaecordingly. In View of
disposal Misc.W. Nos. 60197/2010
85 eisosiflfmiegivdisdssieiiid disposed of.

tipn of .

% $d/«
3* @333

is SD/- ”