Mr K Balamurali Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 20 July, 2009

7 MR MUNIVENKATAHDA
S] 0 SU SBANNA
MAJOR
R/A YERRAPANAHALL1   
KASABA I-IOBLI 
DEVANAHALLI TQ
BANGALORE RURAL l',)!S_'I'

(BY SMT: M C NAGASHREE, H_G(}P__I9€J_R R1--;'3)__ _
(BY SR1. 0 K HARISH .& L s:RIN1vAs,e'A'Dv FOR R4)
(BY SR1. V N JAGADEESF1, .AL3Vii.F'OR*--RS)'e 

(BY SR1. FAYAZ KHAN, AD-VV FOR i?6_{A)'+{G)) 

THIS w.R}"1f_ P'E'mfI0;~e JS m';ej;a,,UNj3ER ARTICLES 226
AND 22'? QF*..,TI~.§£: ._i30NS'F.I_TUTIQN OFINDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH 'H-'«IE ,.<3.RflE=i?,  'e._3'.%2GQ2.- PASSED BY THE R3,
FOUND AT "ANN1Ii§X--I3~ THE.' SAME WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
R2 EYHIS-Q'RnERi:'BT'.~.3';3.2o0e"1i'0UND AT ANNEX--H AND

T1513' ePE'*1*1fi*1:§Ng."'€1¥§3:\2i1NG ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
mar THE cove':  FOLLOWING ;

VA "  _ :er::1:Iy..r.."fiVI"1V.';1l hearing on 1-4-2008.
Later oi), the ' '~..:C:o=:r1I1rissioner recorded in the

order~sheet   the tiswyer for the petitioner had

  the proceedings and accordingly dismissed

As'--t§1e-.appea1'w,i'£hout either recording reasons or findings.

It  that the Deputy Commissioner passed a

 : sep.fa.rate.. detailed order Annexupe--"H" dismissing the

   for Ii{}I1--j0iI1d€I' of necessary parties.

M



3. The approach of the Deputy (3ommissio11e:t'e.i13

dismissing the appeal suffers from not onlythe'  _

perversity of approach but pfincipies of natujfa1'j~2.:1stice_." " V» 'V

The Deputy Commissioner ought to ahave.._eXtefided__Aa3;_ei

opportunity of hearing to    '

counsel over the hleifits of  i  tfiemafier
pass the order in accordianeefiithié  In any event, it
was not open forthe;Depiit}§"Qo1in:r:issioi1er to dismiss
the appeaj.   ii'-easoiis or findings as
animated '-by  tiated 3-3-2008 Annexure-

"H". Wha't.._is  is the fact that after havixig

    recorded so in the order sheet,

 'siibstitut'eoi by an order of even date asslgfl ing

reasons,' §E;o.(fiI1gs and conclusions stating that the

auappeai viiidieserves to be dismissed for noI1~jo:inCIer of

'1?¢§:essa1y parties.

4. Suffice it to state that the procedure adopted is

 not only perverse but the order impugleci is not in

M



conformity with the principles of natural  
error being apparent on the flee of the   _  

dated 3-3~2()()8 Angnexure-"H" _ 

5. in the result, this'  in " L'

part. The order dated..V.3-3:2'G€i8--  of the
Deputy Commissioner  proceeding
remitted for   extending fair

and adeqifietefi   V' g to the parties

concerned  ivig3z_§1se:3:'§V  in accordance
with law.  V' etatus quo granted in
this petition. to*.th'e benefit of the petitioner

 . Vappel  sweetie' the respondents filing an

or modifying the said order to

V -eonsiderecivmryifiiie Deputy Commissioner.

3&5″;

Eeéfifi