AND: 'V
°=.__;1' I THE4sEt:REii'ARY
».....,..,,,.«~''
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT
_;..
DATED THIS THE 9" my OF MARCH
PRESENT %%
mm HOIPBLE MR. P.D. n1nAKARA§I;AjV§iI:£'.fi'_,rtI§'i§cE__
Aw HA _ . ( _ V
THE HoN'3LE 3
WRIT PETIT_I_ON RES)
BETWEEN:
1 SRIH DKU1,3s:;\§r:5;i'__._V_ ~ j _
AGE 37 YE15i1RS_.-u" , V.
S/O. LATE H'=.1»?":)EyA1;x;i--V ~
WORKING TAs.,1iNsPF;CrORV'0F Pcmica
MANIPAL PeL1(:--§I.:,--s'rAT1'G_N-.,____ . '
UDUPI 'I'AL'L}_K _
UDUPI m:3_'m1c'1*=. V W
- -_ PETETEONER
(By 3:; ; .i§}%N{j§ANATHA"S ADVOCATE)
VQEPARTMENT OF' HOME
' ..fwAN'U..fI'RANSPOR'I' DEPT.
3 GQVLT. OF KARNATAKA
- VIDHANA SOUDHA
T - __1:>:'R. AMBEBKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-1
7§ '».:IfRII3IINAL;~BANGAIAORE AND DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION
NC. 4732;'-2oO_E.~ ,
:'*'I*IIIjs IIII€I'I' PETITION COMING up FOR PRELIMINARY
; '[_HE}_AR'iN(}'*--..ON THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWIl'€G:--
2 THE CHAIRMAN j I- , " Q
CADRE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
FOR KARNATAKA A '
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-1
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLIGICFQE.
UDUPITALUK "2
UDUPI DISTRICT
4 SR1. B. GANAPATHI ACHARYA
AGE 55 YEARS
S/C) LATESR1NI7iTAS_AA§CHARV.«i
WORKING As' i._NS'I}?EC'FQ'R OF PO_I..I.CE
CHESCOM,;CH}iMR'AI}NA($AR~.V A
MYSORE DIflR.!.(1"}' '
H RESPONDENTS
(By SR1: B vIs:EI%APPA,’AOA’~—I§OR’ R1 TO R3; Sri K PRASAB
HEGDE, ADV. FOi?__C,»’.R4}. ‘
THIS ;w”RIfI’ I=»E’rI’.I’_IO’N IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
2£”7*()_F THE £3GN_S’TITU’FI-GP.’ OF’ INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS’ REI;ATIN_G TO APPLICATION NO. 4732/2003 AND
QuAsH.AA’ND SE’I’–ASiDE THE ORBER MADE IN APPLICATION NO.
4?32/’:”B()G8 j 9.;;:-:..2OO9 VIDE ANX–A PASSED BY THE
J’UDGh!EN’T
(Delivered ‘by P.D.Dinakaran, e
The above writ petition is the
dated 911 February 2009 in appneeeon 1\2e,4?32,:e2%e;;>é3rVeeigttie ff,
file of Karnataka Administrative where
the 4th respondent herein orders transfer
dated 4th September challenged
before the Tx~:bu;ee: The said
application by the Tribunal by
order datedi:_Sth_ ” giving liberty to the 43*
respondent t«:}’fi1e’V.’21pp1ication before the Cadre
the Cadre Management Authority
byereeree ciat.ed. September 2003 dismissed the review
1 was challenged before Tribunal in
_ _T’A;.)p1ieatiour1 No.:f1;f32/ 2008.
A ‘T133; the impugned orders of transfer dated 4&1
2008 and 2433* September 2008, the 4th respendent
4 “=¢ar.a;if.S;’11’ansferred from Manipal Police Station, Udupi District to
CHESCOM, Chameraganagar, whiie the petitioner _
was arrayed as 491 respondent in the app1iea1_:ion.: fL\efo:fee. the * V.
Tribunal was transferred from CSP, ”
Station, Udupi District in the pl:-1:(_:e.. of 4m” fespondefnt..H1f;e§L”ein =
who was applicant in Application Neigwsepg 2eee;e
3. The ease of the appeeae;,zee eee’;;eeaene herein was
that his transfer Was_:at__ epiesdpdondent in the
application bfifolfi’ Sri Raghupathi
Bhat, a Member’ from ‘Udupi Taluk
and Udupi the 531 respondent Viz, Sri
Raghupathi ehe: denied the said allegation
reeade’ herein. The Writ petitioner, who
eeeeeeyveeee ;4§§”‘respondent before the Tribunal, did not
L»-..eentest’ and though a Counsel represented
_ only vedopted the stand of the Government
grievance of the applicant] 4th respondent before
. is that he took all sincere efforts to investigate inte
e_:th»e:.’a]leged murder of Smt.Padmapriya who was none other
,_.. V/5:3
>. , x}
\ : r’ .s:: .
1 ti 2.? N_.. -n’ ”
i.«e%§~”””‘§
-10-
arrest of Sri Athul Rao. May be, it may be
the case that it was not for him to interfere T ‘V
in the investigation bui it cannot be
that the Sm Respondent had neMkn0w1edgej~.. é _
about the arrest of the said $ri
even on the date of
statement which is “da_7ted.’* Tfiis
appears to us Verj?’ .;§5é.€1fiC’t13ar1y
being a Member of
and being ” ‘(si}1ce his
wife xvaéi ‘bedy could
or ignorant
of fhe or the accused
even ‘<')z:1 the culprit was
ar;:–e.s1;ed éis §§.O6.2008 as per the
In fact, this incident
' '"iE:1(§i and has become sensational
~_ 'issue' in the State of Karnataka
but am. India which this Tribunal could
také:.,!j£1dicia1 notice of it However, We do
want to say anything in this regapd.
Bixt, we feel that a MLA who is a pubiic
figure making such a statement that he
had no knowledge about the arrest of Sri
Athul Rao etc., even on 18.12.2008 is very
-11..
absurd. However, we do not see a. simpiews’
sentence in the three transfer files V” ”
there is any interference V–by ‘é V
Respondent. But, We feel, L thfisfi
transfers appear to be’ .r11ade._V_’over ,
telephone conversation ever: “‘fl:£e
approvai of the Hoflfble ivsmstére ‘is
taken over phone vfihen ,QI1ief
Minister wasain
World Kar;_i1ét§1erC,o3nfereiice’ Qfzeos”. We
express ” V with
such “i’oHowir1g the
held 3 to he statutory
va1ue”by4’t13is’%huhe1′: ‘o§er time and again
since 2065 éxpplications. We are
to what was the public:
‘ ;”iI1terest.,’«ui1<1er what exigencies the transfer
._ 's2'.ere'v ffi:ad"e;;""' The new Government 39
.i'.w'tfi1e Police force (as filed in the
repijg statement) can': pass any orders in
" ff ifs, whims and fancies. The transfer
gtiidelfhes dated 22.11.2001 and
(}'?'.0?.20f}8 which this mbunai time and
again has held has got statutory powers
-12-
and the violafion of which vitiates ll
transfer.
19. While passing the ixI1p”£_igI*1e:lé_
these transfer guidelines ‘given_la..”V _ ”
clear go«–by. Nothing is Vfisfiqwed;-.. HOW
Home Minister could ge€l”V.r1a.¥1;es 2 Gftfie
officers cencemedv a1sr}l.n_t5?;- fQrfh.eommg.
We are also not
Management. : ‘ ‘Authefiqr ‘since
they met4_Vés*1d«.I1§a’£ieidVlprizeeedirrgsl bur not as
per the eeI§ror§*b1el ‘Tribunal.
The”h.efld;’by éxjemllis very bald;
not lfgrrixd. V4 application of
2C§,~ » ll ” irierév, the Applicant has
V’ . A riridergone several transfers during the
including the fiansfer under
Aéthe order. The transfer
gtridelifiers highlights that the concerned
AA Caéremanagement Authority shall initiate
V’ , _t;r’;_-msfers. The transfers shall not be
premature; it shall not be made dlmrlg the
middle of the academic year. The transfers
shall M in public interest. We do not find
ar1ything in the impugzed order but see
.5 ;
Wgw …………. .-
5,
-13-
just utter vioiafion of the transfer
guidelines.
2}. For the reasons narrated above, _ _
allow this application and quash both “ii: « A
impugned orders dated 04.e0é;20otse«tTand.t_’:~_{%’V’
24.09.2003 in so far as it reiateszto . . ‘
Applicant and the 4th pondem;__.
Applicant shall be ‘to
his tenure at 01¢”
Respondents are at oniy in keeping in mind the dated
22.11.2001’ta:e;q 7′;07.;’2i003[;”0 Vt;
6. Froxnatheéh ‘above, it is clear that the 493
respondent herein to pg}-ove himseif to be independent
without ;inte;(‘i’erei1ee.__.ir: the course of his investigation,
§a%e» ‘appreciate. The Tribune} in the order
sedated extracted above have clearly specified
.j’_}:f:h:a4.t’._’Vt.2’1e irnpu§1ed orders sufier from malafide and
‘ and the same is contrary to the guideiines but
. in public interest.
-14-
7. While 90, the petitioner hexein who is an V’
to Manipal Police Station from where the ” ‘
herein was transferred contends
is justified and does not sufler ttorbitraieriness V
malafide exercise of power and event, goidefines
relied upon by the 4:31 Ies’;dondent will not nave any
statutory force. In support… the learned
counse}. places toe
(1) of Karnataka
and others*V{(1§93}.4:1’«»SCC 54);
(2) State of Tainilnf’ ffhiru K.S.Murugese.I1
and others, ((1995) Assoc 273);
_ (3) “IE~I3s(d’1’oel:¢_3et:’ic Power Corporation
e .VLtd}§i. seehagw ddddd an ((2001) 3 sec. 574).
Contrary, the learned Addl. Government
*’?Adx{oee.te Veerappa, of course, based on the written
from the Police Department dated 7&1 March
fiairiy submits that they do not propose to challenge the
-15..
order of transfer any further, however, the
decided to impiement the orders of transfer.
9. The letter dated 7&1 March 200″? ox; 1*1’e1″ieiu13d¥efi:.V.__
Ojffioeyof the Director Ge:’£e=rciI . ‘
And Inapeaor General of Po.£ioe;w
Karnaiaka Siatté’, Bangozlofe 5603901
No.CB2. 92/ 08-09 7 2009 Q’ ‘ i
To
The Government Advooaie ”
0/ 0 Advocate Genera} ‘ Go
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 003. ‘
SUB: W.p_.%ivo.39o6;x.?2ooi9–.i(KAT) on the file of the High
Cour£”~.eof’* Kazrrmtaica at Bangalore — Sri HD
j ‘K:£_Ika111i; iMan:}9al PS, Uciupi Dist! VS/the
” to’ C-o_I;.t.’, Home Department. And others.
Yorir _No.4’76?’2/GA/ 08-09, D1. 13. 02.2009.
Wiihiiifeferefiogeiilto the above, this is to iry”oarm you that the
io_rde::V dateoi o9.o2.2oo9 of the Horflbie Kamatczkcz Adrnirtistrutive
. Bangaiore in the application No.47’32/2008 is under
for implementation after obtaining approval of the
as we?! as the approval of the Election Commission, as
‘ .._§hg”Eioeiion Commission of India has armouzwed General Elections to
F’ ‘ ~ Sabho.-2009.
‘ ” “ei1’ibe;§iesi,one reader by the learned counsel appearing for the
-16..
It is requested to bring this to the kind notice of tfze”:
High Court of Kamataka and it is further requested in ~
week:’s time to implement the Orders of the Hon’b1e V V’
¥ouz§.faigrge£r1y,’ee.._.’ M
For
vifmepeczrfbr Genera?’ Police.
10. Since the Government stated that;
the orders of trz;nefer5Al}§szeu1§§ ilrxplemefiied with a week’s
time, we alse -.efV_ti”1e Government in this
regard. — V =
:1. Mr. KVVV_Prasas§_ Heg(ie..,__ ieémed counsel appearing for
the 4111 res;>eoI_3deritV..1feiterated” the submissions, which were
mega berg-he Hie Tmnag.
12A:-..WeV___v’i’1e$éeAT given our careful consideration to the
.eé»»””‘
-17-
13. Of course, it is settled law that
i.x1ci,dex}.tal to the service conditions and it may z1oi:—-be4′ *
be possible to demonstrate malice in» fact in
elaborate particulars. But it is settled
reasonable inference of maia fide the wtiich are
placed before the Court, be based on
factual matrix without beiiigiij ‘gmmises and
conjectures.
14. In Vane fact remams that the death
of Wife of 5″?” Sri Raghupathi Bhat is
si,1s§3icio1Visi.:.aVI:id the respondent herein in the writ petition
was ._i11tre’stigati£1g«vi,iiito the same. In this regarci, the Statien
stiinmoned and the Government produced
_ -. «– oi
befozje the 1*:-iaouxzaififghe Tribune}, after taking into
‘L,
the entire factual matrix of the case came to the
V’ that the impugxied transfer of-4111 respondent fiom
4j_”}~’IaJ§?ipa1 Poiice Station, Udupi District to CHESCOM,
Eihamarajanagar is malafide and arbitrary but supported with
-18..
no public interest. It is unéer such circumstar3ees’,’
Tribunal reasonably inferred the malafide _
exercise of power and interfered with
transfer transferring the 431 respo1_;der1t—- from o
Station, Udupi District to cnEscap;;;cnag;m;az1agar. If at
all, only the 531 respondehtk should
have preferred an of the Tribunal,
but, the 5m any appeal
against the made party in the
application on the other hand, the
Government to implement the order of
txfafxefer. “J.’iCW of1;;w::’Inatter, in our considered opinion,
chehhetgmpéionj mt ‘ease of m Ym as V.
tohotwresramhof AND orrmns ((1993) 1 see 54)
– j1ied..,upon ” the petitioner wili not help the case of the
: ‘es: the other hand, the same supports the case of
. respondent herein and that of the Government.
If –