High Court Karnataka High Court

S Suresh vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 23 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Suresh vs The Karnataka Power Transmission on 23 November, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM  RE:)fi§' --  O"

WRIT PETITION NO.661(}' OE-2009 ISQRELSIV:  
BETWEEN O'  'O  A' 

SSURESH
S/O. LATE SHIVANNAIAH

AGE 23 YEARS  .

R/O. KAVAIACUNDI   _

BHAIDRAVATHITALUK"     
SHIMOGADISTRICT. "     PE"1'I'I"IONER

(BY SR1 R GQP3':£;' 'AD';V.)      I 

AND:

1   POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORA'FEGN"'L-IMITED
KAVERI BHAVAN BUILDING
' "BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

 " 2 V. .  OOOOO H ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

 T 'I\/IESC.OM_. SHIMOGA -- 577 201.
'     RESPONEENTS

(SE(SRI.; I OVICACIICHINAMATH, ADV.)

& "*£'}~iIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 3: 227

 OI+'~._TI-EE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYINC TO QUASH
' R-.1E.--'ORDER DATED 20.5.2005 VIDE ANNA ISSUED BY R2

AND DIRECT 'F§~IE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER

LEI



2

APPOINTING THE PETITIONER ON COMPASSIONATE
GROUND FORTHWETH; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT  THE
FOLLOWING: I r 

ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the so1fI__ it

wife of one Shivannaiah who

respondent ~– Karnataka “Ppodwer T Tfrahsmissi-on’ = >

Corporation Limited as _C1ass+I§; ‘died on 5-12-
2003, While in haAr1″1ess_’_’Ai :«.__h.,eI’1ce, presented an
application for VappoirIVt:I:ie.nthv’Vo1’i:> crjrripdass-ionate grounds.

corisidered, was rejected by
endors’eII1’eht * 2’-I:3T–“0I’5”–2OO5 AnneXure– “A”. Hence,
this -Writ p’eti_tion.;* A V

2,… in theéirievmorandum of writ petition, it is

‘aja.erre:ti..V_ptI’Iat_ Shivannajah had a first wife from out of

two children and on the death of the first

xwife,”h_e’ took the petitioners mother in marriage as the

-,.Vse.c.o’nd Wife and out of that wedlock, he had two sons of

ix’:

3

which the petitioner is the first son. According to the

petitioner, the children of the first wife and the..cii1iid,ren

of the second wife jointly agreed and extended

objection for the petitioner to make arr’ for

appointment on compassionate igrouxid.

3. It is a conceded on of them

first wife, the deceased took-r.in”3marriage
the second wife whichlhwas’ the notice of
the authorit-ies1~_ ‘ ‘frevlevant material

V”evi.dence. If that is so,

then.’ respondent declining the
request the on the premise that

Shii(annaiahV” taken a second wife, during the

.A the first, is not correct. Ends of justice

the petitioner is permitted to produce

relevant documents including the Death Certificate of

Ath’e._first wife of Shivannaiah to establish the plea that

utheltsecorid marriage was only after the death of the first

iii

4

wife, which I have no reason to believe, the respondent
would not consider and pass orders. in accordanLcei_i’wVith

law.

4. In the result, the Writ petition_-is»aij1oi2Ved;–pV Tiieu

endorsement Annexure–“A” isv’.._qua-s1i1j§ed;r.. V -PVeti’tiVr§n__er=::vr_is

directed to furnish additiziiial m:–iterial.s to”‘s.ubsija:£1tié1teti’

his plea as noticed supra, a period
of four weeks and if doiie,V{_tiie”‘”resporident is directed
to consider ordiersiiithereon, Within
a period offiwo V