IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-IIS THE 2151' DAY 01? JULY. 2010 j
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE _ u
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS_' I'I_CE D'.-5.': PATID L}
WRIT PETITION No. 19950' 2010 '('3-1{VA'r) 1
BETWEEN:
sn.B.s.RANGAsWAMY.: _ '
S / o.B.R.Shankara Ngr_a.yana
Aged about 52_ye&rs,i';j _ ~ W :
Working as Assistarxt Execuétiive '
Minor Irrigati_Dn"'Sxub4-;E)ivisi_on, ~ i
Mysore. ' S 3-1"
{By sn M.$;Bi1ag{va'L:,"f{cl\f;)v«.. "'~
AND:
" _ S1i':fi;S?i2.I:N'IX{ASIjLU--;**--~ *
_ . 1\/i£1}'01'._ D <
Aged {about Zflyears,
' We.1_f1s'.ing.Eas_ 1-Resistant Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigajltidn Sub--Division,
M3fs0re._.' ' "
.' The State of Karnataka,
Department of FWD, Port and Irrigation,
"'_Vi}~:a'sa Soudha,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road,
" V. Bangalore
" V{By Sri L.Ma_hesh, Adv. for
M / s.Panchajanya Assts., for C /R2)
$**
PETITIONER
RESPOVDENTS
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 a 22?.'pof_:th_e
Constitution of India praying to call for records fromptlael
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal on I.A.No.4
No.3992/09 and etc. -
This Petition coming on for ,P_reli:rl1ina'ry Hea:r_iv_ng'~this
MANJUNATH. 3.. made the fo11ovsn'ng:<_l'
okneg]
Against i6;'06.2010 passed on
I.A.No.4~ inpm Application by the Karnataka
Adrninistrative Bangalo.re. the present writ petition is
filed.
2. '[f1:1'(.~_.--v Est respondent" filed an Application No.3992/2009
questioning the order of transfer dated
order was granted on 07.09.2009 and
the interirriordfer granted was vacated and later an application
” filedllbyithe petitioner to dismiss the original application as
‘1n.ai.i’1tainable in lirnine. The 13* respondent contended that
»t?ne__lapplication filed by him was maintainable. The Tribunal
Llconsidering the arguments advanced by both the parties
6/,
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on
perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we are of the
no infirmity is pointed out by the learned ‘C.0l1\flsel.l_l.:’fo’r the
petitioner to call for our interference in to
of the application filed by the 13* respond_enty_beforefjthe’
In paragraph–18. the Tribunal has.:categoi’ically’V.sjtatecilthat the it
subject matter before th.e…VHonible”altogether
different than the one ques’tio_nede—by;:Vth_eiiéfirespondent before
the KAT. Sines Ihe.l{AT isgzof tl1eJ.:opinion_tha’t’ the subject matter
before the Ape;4″‘Court differentpfrom the subject matter of the
3PP11Cation..fil.e§i” .1S*’*–res:pohdent3’held that the application
filed by 12.! 4isi.:niairi’tainab1e and the same has to
be consideredonin accordance with law. If the
Tiibunaiéiélhas taken’-at that the application is maintainable
in such anmapplication has to be heard on merits and that too
when has been vacated by the Tribunal, we
Mare Of’l”‘l:h€v–._V’V.’1€’.’i7; that no injustice has been caused to the
ivlhdpetitiopner the petitioner cannot be considered as an
laggrieved: person. Even if the KAT allows the application filed by
l respondent, it is always open for the petitioner to urge as
A”-aground in a writ petition to be filed against the order of the
Tribunal in regard to maintainability of the application. Since
8/
such a right is avaiiabie to the petitioner, exercising oufipower
ofjuciiciai review under Articie 227 of ‘the Constitutiori’ of ,ab!J $5′ QVIEIQ
We decline to interfere with the order of the
the Writ petition is dismissed. v «_ .y 7.
PKS