In -rim men GOIIRT ow rmmcawmm AT naneamm
twrmn THIB 'mg m am: or AUGU31'
PR%E!l1'
ma 1~1ou*ax..n am. pmnmx vmmm, AC'rI!¢(ir.V*..73ftA4i:i£F"A--§:l:fiJ8A'i'f»lf§E. _
'mm aomnm am. --.§.;a.namm§; " V %
wan' mrrmox so. M
BEWEER:
S132-. Basavanna Bhimappa '
Second E)i:s;i:;i4r2!1.€'*s:3si£5A*"'5?'?3~"*At,"~..
{Iww under oIr1efs'ef.cIiaschar§r:), I ;
Oificc of the Dimctof "
and inspector (§cne1'al'of'Po££<;e';1£j-.,_Nc$.Efif§59/2002 by the
Karnataka (vide Annexure-A)
and and to direct the
1'cspondem:sl"'Tt9_x; into service with all
conscqueIitia1--_§5eI§¢i33';$- annals of salary.
This ll-'l'e'£:it;i<l)n on for hearing, this day, ACTING
.,cHxmn',,,;{t:"aTxcn, insgp me following:
ORDER
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Egri. .’ Kal mddy, learned Government Advocate for
‘ With consent, arguments heard on merits.
Petitioner had filed original application under Section 19 of
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Karaataka
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, registered as Application
%
No.15359/2002, which came to be disposal of 02:3.
the Chajxman of the Tribunal alone.
3. The correctness, propxtictary :”tis “‘i’:\jefing
chailcngw by the petitioner on.’ifar§cty vacif. A«.j2vEv¢n.:3
the learned counsel for the u us various
grounds on which the but to
decide the same tit; ifefifioner presently
confined to “tél;’t::’~.:%:V: not compfitent to
hear the pefifi§§ttetj;S View of the observations
made by the Supreme Court in the
matter cg’-L Union of India and Others
[(1997) V3} sujaemgse. 261]. Our attention has been
” .98 which reads as under”.
to make it clear that where a
qugzg-§t’i’i:V;fi: invokving the intexjprctation of a
provision or rule in relation to the
. , Cb-n:st:i’tution arises for the considcratixm of a
VA fsmglc Member Bench of the Administrative
Tribunal, the proviso to Section 5(6) will
atztoznatrically apply and the Chairman or the
Member conocmed shall refer the matter to a
“W215
Bench so as to interpret and decide the afomsgisi’-tiuzcsfion
pmjcctzcd by the petitioner in his appliczation.
6. In the light of the aforesaid 31;: T
considered opinion that the
Tribunal cannot be sustained ‘Was’; whoflf
Without jurisdiction. is asic;ie. As a
consequence thercef, thé to the Tribunal
for deciding it afregh fiivision Beach for
hearing this {$1} fie;-“‘chai:man.
7. this petition stands allowed
to the extent bnxfvgéith no order as to costs.
Sd/~
sw Acting Chief Justice
Sfi/-I3
Iudgé
