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