High Court Karnataka High Court

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

Karnataka High Court
Sri Cheluvarayaswamy N S/Olate … vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 3 July, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
§N THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT  "

DATED THIS THE 3rd DRY £2.13' J{JL1'_r""'   «V

PRESESIT  Q V
THE HOWBLE MR. P.n."m:NAKARA1§§, 
THE H0N'BLE-- TQTR.J1;:;%~:T1<§'1:jT',§r;§f;;TsABHAHrr

WRIT PETITIGTT No,fs:a2b.é)

1  SR1" cHELU';VARAYAsWAMY N
 S/. oL.AT";~;"N_AR_Aa-fiMHEGOWDA
'9REsENT'Aj_aDRE::s
EJJAIAGHATTTAV VILLAGE
_ NAGAMANQALA TALUK
 V MAND'YA_VDISTRICI'
 1._H0.N BLE 'hr'-fii'€'IS'T}3R FOR TRANSPORT
AGOVTT. 01:' KARNATAKA,
"»xrIDHAr»:.A SOUDHA,

1 ""E3g'¥.,1?I(?+;fkE;{3RE--}..  PEFITIONER

  ;-Ti S RAVI, ADVOCATE. )

"  19 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY ITS PRL SECY
DEPARTMENT OF' TRANSPORT
VIDHANA SOUDHA

EAN GALORE-5600f} 1



2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR  
TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA  _
M.S. BUILDINGS  
BANGALORE  '

3 THE STATE ELECrION"O{;OMMISS:0I~:,-- 
RERBY ITS SE_CRE'I'ARY,'~.__ '   
No.8, cUNNINGI~.1_AM~"ROAi), _ 
BANGALORE,  --  1 

4 RM. SH~.'£NBHA(}"'» . 
S/O réO'1:KNO'éJvN§ 
MAJQR  ._ ' 
mv,  
KOLAR--C§:QLD- FiELfTJ- _"

 "K'O--LA'.'£2 DI;€.¥;'E'RIU.F"- 

5 "r_N.°M. SUBBAIAH " " 
3.10 N.  M-!,}'TH'k'xPPA
MAJOR ' A v 
 IMV, I2<.'r;O'.'
(3HI'FRADL}.R_C.}A DISTRICT.  RESPONEDENTS

' V'  _  Sir: :I3A{EaRAPPA GA. )

 :jj'i*.I:;¥Iré IS FELED PRAYING T0 QUASH THE 

= AGRDERZSTH JANUARY 2008, MADE IN APPLICATION

M). 426_9}'2007 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA
A!iWIl"P{IS'i'RA'I'IVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

This Writ petition coming up for Pu:-1in1i11axy Heazéng 0&1

  day, SABHAHYI' .:I., made the following.

ORDER

This writ petition is fiied by mspondent No.3-

Cheluvarayaswamy, being aggrieved by the order dated

M3

23.1.2003 passed by the Ka1nata}ga Administi}¢fj§e Tzibufgaz

(hereinafter called ‘the .1

119.4259; 2007 in so far as.-mg Tri1i:1n al has: céstggr
Rs.1,000;’~ to be deposited’v:L’Lie£’.V’ Legal
Services Authority fietétioner herein
within thirty days of the Tzibunal
(23.1.2oos);_~£aigi;=:g ‘secretary of the said

Authofit§_is.;:é¢. atifién for its recovery as per

law;

No.4269/ 200′? was filed by

I$E;M.$§1E:’;;ajali#’1es1:)o31dent No.5 herein being aggfieved by

‘ fiche eufier’ .a::$i’vt1fansfer dated 3.9.2007 in the cadre of Meier

H ‘– (MVI) in the Transport Department It was

<:;:$3mz:ei§,gIec1": by the applicant that on 6.5.2096 he was

V " fiom Koppal £9 Mysore and again he was

"'V.vVf:'afisfefzeci firm: Mysore to Chitraéurga an 24.53200? ané

noW, impugncxi order of {transfer dated 3.9.2007 he was

transferred to KC}? fiom Cifittadurga and the impugned

J'

transfer has been made in vioiation of j

guidelines and G05 dated 22.1i*4…20o1"«.}7e%1;e
instance of the third mspofiaient-concerruled The
writ petitioner herei,11__w11o role to play; say ifi the

scheme of transfer playing a pivotal role

' for money flovmv in ,;i'},§V1'z1"1;.he behest] request

of his faxfofiied respondent.

weé””1esismd by the respondent
State’>_eo::ften¢::1ij1:§g of transfer has been passed in
accoxdaifiee with-__léxv»’ following the procedure and the

c_u’iie1j’o;f_ n”a.i1Sfe.r._._.r3zoes not call for interference in the

~ ;apii¢;ae:aq;g.”e’r1;e Trribunal by order dated 28.1.2008 held that

H * é:'”p:m- circumstances, application No.4266/200?

a§s,9oggd”{§f by the ‘Tribunal on 28.1.2068 wherein fiequent

V ” Exzgosyfer has to be made, the sme have been set aside by

cost of Rs.I,O00/– payable by the third zespcmilent

¥t3y order dated 3.9.2007 and following the said order, the

Tribunal held that the impugned order of transfer is liable to
U’:

be set aside and further directed that the

petitioner herein to deposit Rs.1,000/-

State Legal Services Authority:’a’f 7. AV

days finm the date of the 01133; feehich, VV

Secxetaxy of the Authozity for its

zecovexy as per law.

4. Being aggxicyggi oi:de1″~:V._’cgf’–V’the tribunal in so

far as’ it’ diveétiozi to the writ petitioner to
depdseit /$9′ be deposited in the Karnataka
State Aeithoxity at Bangalore within thirty

from th锑date«vof the order, this Writ petifidn is filed

, ; ‘<;:31:11isa:;;n,i'1'i.r:1g« 'that though the third respondent was made a

H * Ax;')art5»;'it.§;A–'i}';_1eA',§hifipIica1:io}:1 by name, it has not been proved that

fifiipfigeed order of transfer was vitiatcd by any conduct

" o::_ the {miter was passed at the instance «of the Writ

fiefifioner. Baselcss allegations have been made against the

writ petitioner herein and 130 finding has been given and

even in the absence of any finding that the impugned order

'J3

the application before the Tribunal' Lhougll j 2

made that the said transfer has
of the writ petitioner hereifiV.ys%h.o Wes"
Txaxlsport, the said 119; all It
is also clear from passed by the
Tribunal thatfihe ihat the allegation
of against him being
very particulars cannot be
the perusal of the order that the
Tn;bu§ia1L'has' impugned order following the

onjler pas§ed'g:1vAp1§2ic:;eon No.4266/200'? dated 23.1.2003

. "otjder ofmltransfer efiecfing premature transfers

the applicant to serve in a place till the

of ofice is vitiated. There is no finding given by

the that the transfer was effected at the instance of

V' petitioner herein who was Working as Minister for

Trajssport at the relevant nine. The order passed by the

Tribunal would also show that the Tribunal has followed the

earlier decision. in Application No.='~'i~266]2Q(}7 dates

\.«°~

28.1.2008. The said finding of the Tribunal _'4;'\Lg§p4§'icf#§ti9n

No.4266/ 2007 was challenged in VV

No.9202/ 2009 and the same has @5663 :by 'ofc1cr' i AV

dated 3.7.2009 by hokiing for t1£eV_'r;¢a:éjo;ns"e~._:§sign.:d –L£he§we;5:;

that the direction to they iésgidndexit

before the Tribunai t() dCpQ,'»3it offis. 1:000] – with
the Karnataka State within tl:u1ty'

days from alt: of has been set aside

and » '1*::§$Qn assigxleci by the Tribunal in
Appiicéttiéné of on 28.1.2008 is no

lo'I31'g<':r_ .avaiiab1§:'f'c')r éirdfifing payment of cost in the present

" Hiifilowing the reasoning in the said writ

&iv§T::.;51d that this Writ petition is also entitled to be

é11OW¢d' so far as it relates to dimction. to the Writ

AA yefifiazier to cost of Rs.1,000/- with the Kanziataka State

Services Authority at Bangalore within thirty days fmm

the date of order is set aside. Accordingly, we pass the

following curler:

\.?’

10

The writ petition is allowed_, Th: dixfééfibfi 2

impugned order passed by tfic ‘E’rib:iznAa l Af;:3;1’3.;ic.i’;*:;3′;1:oI1 .

M42591 2007 dated 28.1.r2tmg in fa: as=gi¢1:;-e.-(:15 the ‘waft’

petitioner herein to deposi.tfi”L:_;;{~ with the

Karnataka State _’A.;.§Lhg)fit}r at Bangalore

within thirty days fivgm, .:j.q¢%.d§;§g; fig: fajiing which the

Member is at liberty to take

action fog’ gs aside.

…. .. .. . .

Chief Justice

_____
Judge

I1§i’:1:~;§:;’: f{e’s} No

” Wgb goat: Yes] No