Sri Cheluvarayaswamy N S/O Late … vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its on 3 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Cheluvarayaswamy N S/O Late … vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its on 3 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}? KAF€i5If§'FAKA_.1?§'I"{3#}1S§%5C§1A..Lx')Fé.'4.)£ " ~ A 

BATES THIS THE 3-rd i9AY,-0:«'Ti'..Jut3Lir.' fi2(34€'Z§'1.}f A'
?RE§EN§- ' _u  .WE'u
THE HONTSLE MR. P.D. I$i%I§J§.:KA;§Ai§','  ;3UsTicE
V  &  2    "
THE I5ION'BLE_1\§R.,JiIéifICiEVV§;{}',$ABHAHIT

vP';«:*':?:T:w} :~i10i.:9g'é0e-52009

1  SR1 Cii;E}LU'VARAYASWAMY N
 sf QLATE .  V*ARASEMH__EGOWDA
P-;2BsENT_ A-m3R'E__3S"
EJJALAGPIATTAVAVELLAGE
-- » NAGAMANGALA TALUK
 MANDY}"rD,ISTRiCT
5»-."HO3%iABLE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT
 _  Govfr;. OF KARNATAKA,
V ._"'vt1I:;HA.NA SQUDHA,
'BANGALORE-1.  PETITIONER

( I33f  'R' s RAVI,ADVOCA'!'E. )

V' ~ Am) 

1" THE SFATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRL SECY
DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORESGOOO 1

2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR



TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDINGS
BANGALORE

3 THE S'I'A'I'I:') ELECTION CO,MMI,SSEO§I,"   
RERBYITS SECRETARY,   X'  _ " "
No.3, CUNNINGHAM;R_OAD,"p_  
BANGALORE. V  'L

4 SRI.SA'I'ISH BABU, M.
3/0 NOT KNOWN 
MAJOR  ~ %
IMV,R.T.O %V  i   
BAN-GALGRE ($Oi;:'T}}§}. "  V

5 ~"PIi"~2AIV\iEZAN',*-:  A 
 S/0 I~iU'SSAIN s:~.A1a,.__ -- I
'!\(§;E_3I) ABQ'"UT'j49T'YEz.%RS,
IMV .R.'F.O'* ,  '
BELLARY.   =...~.:..R£:sPON9EN'1s

fiézy  __B.VEERAPPA GA. )

'%,Ti1I.€m*P IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

 "'::n3;2a.:..pe,V*'T-Mans IN APPLICATION No.4276/07, PASSED
QB's*--r THE  l~ION'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE

'1'-g'IB;m~AL;.-- BANGALORE.

" vffhis Writ: petition coming up for Prelinainary Hearing

  "01:a_1:bjs clay, SABHAHIT J., made the following.

0 R D E R
This writ petition is fiied by respondent No.3»

Cihsluvarayaswamy, being aggrieved by the oxdar dated

\..)»-

23.1.2003 passed by the Karnataka Adminisfi%:infiVéV_’T#ii)t:;ia1

(heminafier called ‘the Tribunal) »ABangaI01~e,.– f :A;:).p’Eicafiou,

510.4275/2007 in so far as the Tafibumgjivhag

Rs.1,00{)/~ to be deposited t1£e._Ka1na:aic;;

Services Authority at Ba13ga1;)” rex_:I)j,.r_VVthe:V pE:ti1.:i§;>I1t:r herein
within thirty days fi’e;i;1:i’:t*hc’tj:VLé’«o;1iervv'($rfVAvtvhe Tribunal
(23.1.2oos) failing of the said
Authority i$”a{“A;},i:T§)ert3:;t to its recovery as per

law.

2007 was filfid 13y P.Ramzan-

mspondénfi NQ;’5__ bciag aggrieved by the order of

3.-._9__-«E007 in the cadre of Motor Vehiclfi

. in the Transport Department. It was

H = ‘V the app]1ca’ 111: that on 27.6.2005 he was

from Bijapur ta: Bellaxy and new under impugned

V’ ” o2t.tjcr “‘of transfer dated 3.9.2007 he was transfermti to

“‘V $’eiéhanka from Bcllaxy and the impugned transfer has been

‘ made in violation of the Government guidelines and G03

\.»&

dated 22.11.2091 and 6.6.2007 at the

msponden.t–concerned Minister. The

who had no role to play nor Vvfifinsfer T.

but insirumental, playing a_ pivoiéal foriigidnegr

abundance to him at the beiiestl requestef

candidates including _ 2

3. The appiicatiqsi the respondent

State eonteeidiafiggih ‘thai. oifdei’

Rs.1,000/- tn be deposited the Kt-i1*net’a’jl(avv§’$tate Legal

Services Authority at 1iab.ie<to be set aside.


5. We   V'  appearing for
the     Advocate who has
taken.    to issue notice to

the ether’ writ petition is confined to
cha11enegVee._theVVeVtd’_e’:é.*’V.ef in so far as it palates to

iSS1:i€(3_.V:tt) Writ petitioner to deposit cost with the

State Legal Services Authority and no relief is

._ the other respondems.

z ‘lite learned counsel appearing for the petifioxaer

” that though allegations have been made that the

order of transfer has been effected at the instance

“ef the writ petitioner herein who was the Minister for

Transport at the relevant time, the said contention is not at
\,>>

7

all substantiated and no material whatever “it;

that behalf and the Tribunal has also no:s~sg–;§é;s

that the writ petitioner was ré;Asp<):I1§Aii3l"e–s_ is the "

transfer of the petitioner–ag:ap1ica1it"b éforc

in the sbssncs of said findizsg; pxdsrsgrsétisg deposit of

cost is liable to be sss'j ss:de.;" V V .__ _

7. On the othef’ ha11ci,__ Qasztmmcnt Acivocate

submitféd “dcp§ éit'(3f cost has been passed on
the ‘l:iasis.’_ or _ihVs;:r§;dér passed by the Tribzmai in

Appficafiéa % No,4266,f_

. ‘”~’sV_c gvcn caztzful consideration to the

wrthc learned counsel appeanh g for the paras’ s

ésnd sgzrtlfifaised the material on record.

a The material on record would clearly’ Show that the

“ap:;;§ficafion before the Tribunal was filed c g the

U __E0Iflt’3I’ of transfer of the applicant and the fifth nespondent in

the application before the Tribunal though an allegation was

U3

made that the said transfer has been efieeted

of the writ petitioner herein who was pworkifig “ae’_ foe’ . u

Transport, the said. contention is’-,notj”at.:’a}«Iee

is also eiear from the Vtlxetttoxdertvi :

Tribunai that the Txihunal the allegation
of malafides and mdnetaxy against him being
veiy vague lackingexiy cannot be

e13.tert.aineg;1.3._:It of the order that the

the onder following the
ozdervtipesseri No.4266/200′?’ dated 23.1.2093

wherein _c.’:f htzefiefer eifeeting pxetnature transfers

applicant to serve in a place till the

V office is vétiated. There is no fiding given by

t that the transfer was eifected. at the instance of

the *~ eefifioner herein who was working as Minister for

” at the relevant time. The order passed by the

Tfibunal would also Show that the Tribunal has followed the

earlier decision in Applieafion Ne.4~266/ 200? dated

28.1.2008. The said finding of the Tribunal in Applieafion

\.J’

9 .. .

No.4266/2007 % was challenged in r>7efeifio_n

No.92(}2/2009 and the same has been aisposefi o:*vib”y%

dated 3.7.2009 by holding for t1:Le’*’i~eaeenfls~ fl:e:§e;;n Y

that the direction to the writ

before the Tribunal to depesi{“‘the es: of with’
the Karnataka Statfi .=L;:gal ‘S€11;i§£fi;Sl””Auth(‘) Iii}*A svithin thirty
days fiom the date of has been set aside

and thcrcfo;t,: ‘t.hc a§s’sQigpefl the ‘I’ribuna1 in

Appueeaefi’ diepmed of on 28.1.2008 is no
payment of cost in the pm-sent

apyficafiofi ‘foIl£vw:i}1g the reasoning in the said writ

. AVIj¢~;::aifié>i:i, iéb’r:&ho1dVi1i£§t this writ pcfition is also entitled to be

far as it relatss to dirccirion to the Writ

cost of Rs.1,0()0/– with the Kamataka State

Legei1. S2=;1’v°ices Authority at Bangalore thirty days from

date: of order is set aside. Acccnziingky, we was the

foiiowing opdcz”.

The writ petition is allcwed. The direction issued in the
ixnpugned order pasascd by the Tfibunal in Application
\)

10

No.4276/2007 dated 23.1.2003 in so far as it

petitioner herein to deposit cost of Rs.

Karnataka State Legal i AV

within th1rty’ days from the date _'(V)x].’J’d€:3V.”;.f._’3A;:;I1″13.

Member Secrataxy of the     take

actbn for its Iegxsyezjr   
   Chief 31135'-139

Sd/-'
Iudqe

if *  " II:d.¢x '§'as/No

--   Host Yes] No

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *