High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri H Y Venkatachalaiah S/O Late … vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 30 May, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri H Y Venkatachalaiah S/O Late … vs Karnataka Power Transmission … on 30 May, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT ore' KARNATAKA, pan-g:s:rk:g;a:;;:;i:.;;*2J13.'%% _  

DATED THIS THE 323% £§}£*g' §>§»é% :¢m¥%,%2fAcso3wL'kk"J 
13:::§4'_<_.31NNAMPE:?'   %   

000123 DI;'~TRICT£' °- " A

$33 PETITEONER.

  «ASSTS & RANGANATHA S .1013)

Am:__"    

1

E{.é1§2N;'»f1'AKA POWER TRANSMISSION
QQEPQRATION rm (KPFCL)

:  BY'"IT'S MANAGING Dn¢eE<;;**:r-<.:ai~2

4"$?_?_3\.l_JV!:.}i<l'1' §:§HA\/AN

" }BA.E\3(_§Ai.,I_);<J:2~9

CHIEF ENGINEER(ELECI'RICAL)

CESC, MYSCIRE ZONE

Ni), 163.3, ANNAP(_)(_)KNb2SWA.l{i (~1(_}MPL1£}{
IS'? CRQSS, ANIKETHANA FCOAB

P ANQ T BLOCK, KUXZEMPU N'AG.rAR
MYSC3F3E-'.23



3 EXECIIEEVE 3EN{3rINEER(ELECTRICA.L}..v.  . 'V
MESC€)M{EXECiU'I'iON AND-*£IviFLEIviEI§T}%.;TE'(31"i}j. 
L)1V1S£(_)N,«        '
MANDYA

4 $1<1MUt~LL) KALLL) 
JR.ENGINEER(ELEC'.4'I'R£CAL} 
KPFCL, MASTER UNIT SER'y?ICE=.
STA'T1ON(MUSS)  % g   
3_)()I)JJAi<;j:2i<I:2 (}i-{CJUIND     J %
MYS(}:s{h2      4'

    %   RESPONDENTS»

{By Sri ARA.\I1:§Q KL¥.MA£§:’;, FOR 152 1-3;

SR: R4. 1

THIS–.WP £~%::;1g:;:”3>T}1;mI3_E;1€ ARTICLES 226 AND :22′? OF
THE CQN§:’Tfl’F_?TiQ>N._Pi?AYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORI}S”§s?EL£\’TINi3K #52:: EMGUGNED ORDER 13=i::5.?.2o06
VIBE .ANNE:£LrRE– K PASSED BY THE E:><;E’I’; ._18.’?Z2Ci(‘)6 VIBE ANNEXURE L, PERUSE AND
QUAS}I–,_THEV AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AN?) ALSO
A”-.?’i(f)i…é’5f§.”§7:\/’E33 ” Q’F’_.}PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTECE AND

ALS(‘}*OPP”Q~S}’-3 TO THE RULE 11 AND 12 OF KCS (cm)

RULES.

PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

A: ‘HEARING IN ‘E’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
L’ Hx’.)1.:,.ow1Nc;:

{.1 K D 1:3 K
Challenge in this writ petition is to Annexure–K under

which a sum of Rs. 1,410,418.63 is sought to be recovered

from the petitioner on the ground that esfer

charge there was a shertfail of certain mate;je;$;…€ ‘ % .. ‘V

2. Mr. Ranganatii Jois, 1earz1ed:ee:m-Se’; appeaé’i.t3g_:ii)r.t11es.

petitioner submits that the ii
passed without notice to “~petifiC’K1€I’.- is

violation of principles Q£’.§1etu1*ai }ii’stiee.. ..

3. Apparently, a ‘.oI’;Vj_:’i;ir2ex3;1re-K Weuid indicate

that prideeediiigsw i11i_fiz~.\_.1;ed.’a11d recovery order is passed

without i1et_iceV ti: ‘the Admittedly whenever an

order.%fA&’det1imef1i:s.3:Vie the interest of the party is passed,

meseeverv._i–z1imoneta:y matter, it is essential for the

suth9rities”_t0″issue a notice before recovery order is passed.

~V As impugned order does not show that such

V’ ‘..je:-iereriése has been done.

i’ Having regard to the fact that no notice has been

issued, the impugned erder at An.riexure~–K is liable to be

quashed and it is accerdizigly quashed. Censeq1;en

A11nexure–L also stands quashed. Both the ..;aé*;-…x,§r.>¢:11

as respondent-4 shall take this prr2ce!::diI1g”£a’$” its ihéinfi

and shall appear before the ;”a;:o;¥};11:>§ét<é11t_"' .on " "

30.6.2008. Respondent~3 précegd 91' me
matter in accordance with law–tiiexealter.' " — V
Petition stands VV A

Rule is i$s+1:;t:fl_ ar::._biV'fi1a{1c.¢$;}§SQ1ute?.

true