Basavanna Bhimappa Bajantri vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 7 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Basavanna Bhimappa Bajantri vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 7 August, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma A.S.Bopanna
In -rim men GOIIRT ow rmmcawmm AT naneamm
twrmn THIB 'mg m am: or AUGU31' 


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

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:


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


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.


sw Acting Chief Justice


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information