{"id":119966,"date":"2005-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005"},"modified":"2017-03-17T14:22:07","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T08:52:07","slug":"hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2554 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nHombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/12\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT
\nW I TH
\n CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2555-2557 OF2003<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n
\tOne Venkappa Gowda, Respondent No.3 herein, was at all material
\ntimes a lecturer in Kuvempu Mahavidyalaya, the Appellant No.2 herein.
\nThe said institution is under the management of the Appellant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
The private institutions in the State of Karnataka are governed by the
\nKarnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act,
\n1975, (for short, ‘ the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Respondent No.3 herein was subjected to a disciplinary
\nproceeding on an allegation that he had assaulted the Principal of Appellant
\nNo.2 with a ‘chappal’.  He was found guilty of the said charge and dismissed
\nfrom service.  An appeal was preferred by him before the Educational
\nAppellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’)  in terms of Section 8 of the
\nsaid Act.  The said Tribunal is constituted in terms of Section 10 thereof.
\nThe proceeding before the said Tribunal by a legal fiction is  treated to be a
\njudicial proceeding.  It is not in dispute that the Appellant No.2 received
\ngrant-in-aid from the State of Karnataka in terms of the Grant-in-Aid Code
\nframed by the Karnataka Collegiate Education Department.  Before the
\nTribunal, the State of Karnataka as also the Director of Collegiate Education
\nwere impleaded as parties.  A preliminary issue was framed as to whether
\nthe departmental proceedings held against the Respondent No.3 was in
\nconsonance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules.  While
\ndeciding the preliminary issue, it was held that the departmental proceeding
\nwas invalid in law.  The Appellants, therefore, adduced evidences before the
\nTribunal to prove the charges against Respondent No.3.  The Tribunal
\nhaving regard to the pleading of the parties formulated the following
\nquestions for its determination :\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.\tWhether the respondents 1 and 2 have
\nproved by acceptable evidence that allegation that the
\nappellant had absented from duty unauthorisedly and as
\nto whether his conduct was unbecoming of lecturer ?\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tWhether the evidence establishes that the
\nappellant had misbehaved on 18.1.87 and as to whether
\nhe had indulged in physical assault upon the Principal?\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tIf so, whether the punishment of dismissal
\nimposed upon the appellant is justified in this case and
\nif not what punishment he deserves?”\n<\/p>\n
\tUpon consideration of the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal
\nheld that the first charge had not been satisfactorily proved by cogent and
\nacceptable evidence.  As regard the second charge, it was found :\n<\/p>\n
\t“R.W. 1 has himself stated that he did not permit
\nappellant to sign the attendance register in the morning of
\n18.9.87.  It led to verbal altercation and then turned to
\nheated argument.  According to R.W. 1 appellant abused
\nhim in the vulgar language as :\n<\/p>\n
\t(Boli magane, Mudi goobe, Neenyaru nnann
\nJekijethus)  <\/p>\n
\tRW. 1 pushed him.  This particular part of his
\nevidence is sought to be corroborated to evidence of C.S
\nDhanpal.  Dhanpal has stated he was present in the
\nchamber of Principal when appellant arrived.  He also
\nsays that the Principal refused to permit appellant to sign
\nthe attendance register.  Dhanpal further stated that R.W.
\n1 told appellant he will not permit him to sign even
\nmorning registers if he does not sign afternoon registers.
\nAfter hearing such talk Vankappagowda replied “It is not
\na proper conduct of Principal” and rushed towards him.
\nThen Principal took away the register from
\nVenkappagowda  At that juncture Venkappagowda
\ncaught hold of his collar.  Simultaneously Principal R.W.
\n1 pushed Venkappagowda down which resulted in his
\nfall.  After falling down Venkappagowda got up and hit
\nthe Principal with a chappal.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was held :\n<\/p>\n
\tSince I am only appreciating facts placed before
\nme, it is but necessary that the facts so projected should
\nbe considered collectively and not in isolation.  Each fact
\nspoken by the witnesses has woven a web clearly
\nindicating that all was not well between the Principal and
\nthe appellant and therefore, incident on 18.9.87 took a
\nviolent turn.  The evidence has to be weighed according
\nto the norms of reasonable probabilities, but not in trade
\nmans scale. While doing this exercise I have formed an
\nopinion that the incident would not have occurred had the
\nPrincipal employed restrained upon his words and action.
\nAny way even the act of the appellant in using chapels to
\nassault the Principal cannot under any circumstances be
\njustified.  Both persons involved are teachers what is
\ntaught should be practiced.  If what their action show is
\nany indication an impression is gathered that the
\nPrincipal and the appellant have acted in undesirable
\nmanner and unbecoming of academitials to say the least
\nteachers, their acts are demeaning the profession they
\nhave adopted”\n<\/p>\n
\tDespite holding that although it could not be said that the Respondent
\nNo.3  acted in retaliation to the action of the Principal, but such conduct  was
\nnot justifiable, he opined that the assault by the Respondent No.3  on the
\nPrincipal was proved.  However,  he  awarded punishment of withholding of
\nthree increments only in plea of the order of dismissal passed by the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“The appellant shall be taken back to service and
\nwill be entitled to all pecuniary benefits like salary and
\nallowances retrospectively from the date of dismissal
\nminus and subject to withholding of three increments.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent 1 and 2 are held liable to make
\npayment of amount due to the appellant.  I also hold
\nrespondents 3 and 4 vicariously liable to discharge the
\nclaim of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved, the Management, the State of Karnataka also the
\nRespondent No.3 preferred separate writ petitions before the Karnataka High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court in its judgment came to the following findings :\n<\/p>\n
\t“When the action of the petitioner in assaulting the
\nPrincipal with chappal stands proved by the evidence of
\nR.Ws. 1 to 5, whatever may be the provocation for such a
\nconduct, the said conduct of the Petitioner cannot be
\njustified under any circumstances.  Therefore the
\nTribunal was fully justified in holding that the
\nmisconduct alleged against the Petitioner stands proved
\npartly.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court noticed that the punishment imposed by the Tribunal
\ncould not be given effect to as Respondent No.3 in the meantime reached the
\nage of superannuation within three months from the date of the order and,
\nthus, held that the Appellants should be directed to pay back wages to the
\nextent 60% only.  It was further held that though the primary liability to
\nmake such payment is that of the Management, when Management could
\nclaim the same by way of advance grant or by way of reimbursement from
\nthe Government, its liability to pay the said amount cannot be disputed.\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth the Management as also the State are, thus, in appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. R.S. Hegde and Mr. S.R. Hegde, the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Appellants in their respective appeals, would submit that as a
\nfinding of fact was arrived at both by the Tribunal as also the High Court
\nthat the Respondents committed a misconduct, which is grave in nature,
\nthere was absolutely no justification in directing payment of 60% back
\nwages after setting aside the order of punishment of dismissal imposed by
\nthe Management.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. S.N. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nRespondent No.3, on the other hand, would contend that a finding of fact has
\nbeen arrived at by the Tribunal which has been affirmed by the High Court
\nthat it was the Principal who provoked  Respondent No.3.  It is not in
\ndispute, Mr. Bhat, submitted that the Principal was also at fault but curiously
\nenough he was not proceeded against.  Both the Respondent No.3 and the
\nPrincipal of the College having been found guilty, it was argued, it was
\nobligatory on the part of the Management to initiate a departmental
\nproceeding also against the Principal.  The Management of the Institution
\nbeing guilty of being selectively vindictive, Mr. Bhat urged, it is a fit case
\nwhere this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
\nArticle 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further submitted that the question should also be considered
\nfrom the angle that charge no. 1 framed against the Respondent No.3 was
\nnot proved  Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the Management
\nhad sought for time for complying with the order of the High Court which
\nhaving been granted, the Appellants are estopped and precluded from
\nmaintaining this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
It is now well-settled that by seeking extension of time to comply with
\nthe order of the High Court by itself does not preclude a party aggrieved to
\nquestion the correctness or otherwise of the order of the High Court as
\nthereby a party to a lis does not waive his right to file an appeal before this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent No.3 is a teacher.  He was charge-sheeted for
\ncommission of a serious offence.  He was found guilty by the Tribunal.
\nBoth the Tribunal as also the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, have
\narrived at a concurrent finding of fact that despite grave provocation, the
\nRespondent No.3 cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him.  It
\nmay be true that no departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated
\nagainst the Principal of the Institution, but the same by itself would not be a
\nrelevant fact for imposing a minor punishment upon the Respondent.  It may
\nfurther be true that the Respondent No.3 committed the offence under a
\ngrave provocation, but as noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal  as also the
\nHigh Court categorically held that the charges against him were established.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal’s jurisdiction is akin to one under Section 11A of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act.  While exercising such discretionary jurisdiction, no
\ndoubt it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one punishment by another; but
\nit is also trite that the Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this behalf.
\nThe jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment could be
\nexercised only when, inter alia,  it is found to be grossly disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court repeatedly has laid down the law that such interference  at
\nthe hands of the Tribunal should be inter alia on arriving at a finding that no
\nreasonable person could inflict such punishment  The Tribunal may
\nfurthermore exercises its jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into
\nconsideration by the Management which would have direct bearing on the
\nquestion of quantum of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\tAssaulting a superior at a workplace amounts to an act of gross
\nindiscipline.  The Respondent  is a teacher.  Even under grave provocation a
\nteacher is not expected to abuse the head of the institution in a filthy
\nlanguage and assault him with a chappal. Punishment of dismissal from
\nservices, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly disproportionate so as shock
\none’s conscience.\n<\/p>\n
\tA person, when dismissed from services, is put to a great hardship but
\nthat would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished.
\nAlthough  the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters,
\nbut a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be
\nsaid to be unheard of.  Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally
\nimportant.  Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may
\nhereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Management of Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bharatiya Chah
\nMazdoor Sangh and Anr.  [JT 2004 (7) SC 333 =  (2004) 8 SCC 200],
\nthis Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“This leaves us to consider whether the punishment of
\ndismissal awarded to the workmen concerned dehors the
\nallegation of extortion is disproportionate to the
\nmisconduct proved against them. From the evidence
\nproved, we find the workmen concerned entered the
\nEstate armed with deadly weapons with a view to gherao
\nthe manager and others, in that process they caused
\ndamage to the property of the Estate and wrongfully
\nconfined the manager and others from 8.30 p.m. on 12th
\nof October to 3 a.m. on the next day. These charges, in
\nour opinion, are grave enough to attract the punishment
\nof dismissal even without the aid of the allegation of
\nextortion. The fact that the management entered into
\nsettlement with some of the workmen who were also
\nfound guilty of the charge would not, in any manner,
\nreduce the gravity of the misconduct in regard to the
\nworkmen concerned in this appeal because these
\nworkmen did not agree with the settlement to which
\nothers agreed, instead chose to question the punishment.”\n<\/p>\n
\tYet again in Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union
\n[(2005) 3 SCC 331 = JT 2005 (2) SC 444], the law has been laid down in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
“It is well-established principle in law that in a given
\ncircumstance it is open to the Industrial Tribunal acting
\nunder Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
\nhas the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment
\nawarded in the domestic inquiry for good and valid
\nreasons. If the Tribunal decides to interfere with such
\npunishment it should bear in mind the principle of
\nproportionality between the gravity of the offence and the
\nstringency of the punishment. In the instant case it is the
\nfinding of the Tribunal which is not disturbed by the writ
\ncourts that the two workmen involved in this appeal
\nalong with the others formed themselves into an unlawful
\nassembly, armed with deadly weapons, went to the office
\nof the General Manager and assaulted him and his
\ncolleagues causing them injuries. The injuries suffered by
\nthe General Manager were caused by lathi on the head.
\nThe fact that the victim did not die is not a mitigating
\ncircumstance to reduce the sentence of dismissal.”\n<\/p>\n
[See also Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.N. Narawade<\/a> etc.  JT 2005 (2)
\nSC 583].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and Others [(2005) 7 SCC 338], relying
\nupon a large number of decisions, this Court opined :
\n“The common thread running through in all these
\ndecisions is that the court should not interfere with the
\nadministrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers
\nfrom procedural impropriety or was shocking to the
\nconscience of the court, in the sense that it was in
\ndefiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has
\nbeen stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go
\ninto the correctness of the choice made by the
\nadministrator open to him and the court should not
\nsubstitute its decision for that of the administrator. The
\nscope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in
\ndecision-making process and not the decision.
\nTo put it differently unless the punishment imposed
\nby the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority
\nshocks the conscience of the court\/Tribunal, there is no
\nscope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it
\nmay, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
\npunishment by recording cogent reasons in support
\nthereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is
\nshockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to
\ndirect the disciplinary authority or the Appellate
\nAuthority to reconsider the penalty imposed.”\n<\/p>\n
In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate<\/a> [(2005) 2 SCC
\n489], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or the
\nIndustrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in terms of the
\nprovisions of the Act, must act within the four corners
\nthereof. The Industrial Courts would not sit in appeal
\nover the decision of the employer unless there exists a
\nstatutory provision in this behalf. Although its
\njurisdiction is wide but the same must be applied in terms
\nof the provisions of the statute and no other.
\nIf the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser punishment
\nmay be imposed, but such an order cannot be passed on
\nan irrational or extraneous factor and certainly not on a
\ncompassionate ground.\n<\/p>\n
In Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal<\/a>
\nit has been held that it is not the normal jurisdiction of
\nthe superior courts to interfere with the quantum of
\nsentence unless it is wholly disproportionate to the
\nmisconduct proved. Such is not the case herein. In the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case and having regard to
\nthe past conduct of the respondent as also his conduct
\nduring the domestic enquiry proceedings, we cannot say
\nthat the quantum of punishment imposed upon the
\nrespondent was wholly disproportionate to his act of
\nmisconduct or otherwise arbitrary.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma<\/a> [(2005) 3 SCC
\n401], this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“In the case on hand, the employee has been found
\nguilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the
\nworkplace, obviously in the presence of other employees.
\nThis clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the
\norganisation. Discipline at the workplace in an
\norganisation like the employer herein, is the sine qua non
\nfor the efficient working of the organisation. When an
\nemployee breaches such discipline and the employer
\nterminates his services, it is not open to a Labour Court
\nor an Industrial Tribunal to take the view that the
\npunishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to
\nthe charge proved. We have already referred to the views
\nof this Court. To quote Jack Chan,<\/p>\n
“discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour
\nwhich helps maintain social order and contributes to the
\npreservation, if not advancement, of collective interests
\nof society at large”.\n<\/p>\n
Obviously this idea is more relevant in considering the
\nworking of an organisation like the employer herein or an
\nindustrial undertaking. Obedience to authority in a
\nworkplace is not slavery. It is not violative of one’s
\nnatural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the
\norganisation as well as that of its employees. When in
\nsuch a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded
\nfor hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the
\nwork of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance
\nestablished, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot
\ncertainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The
\nLabour Court and the High Court in this case totally
\nmisdirected themselves while exercising their
\njurisdiction. The Industrial Court made the correct
\napproach and came to the right conclusion.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane<\/a> [(2005) 3
\nSCC 254], this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“From the above it is clear that once a domestic
\ntribunal based on evidence comes to a particular
\nconclusion, normally it is not open to the Appellate
\nTribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion
\nin the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal.
\nIn the present case, there is evidence of the inspector who
\nchecked the bus which establishes the misconduct of the
\nrespondent. The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence
\nand found the respondent guilty. But the courts below
\nmisdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the
\nticketless passengers to reject the said finding which, in
\nour opinion, as held by this Court in the case of Rattan
\nSingh is not a condition precedent. We may herein note
\nthat the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh has since
\nbeen followed by this Court in Devendra Swamy v.
\nKarnataka SRT.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further held :\n<\/p>\n
“Coming to the question of quantum of punishment,
\none should bear in mind the fact that it is not the
\namount of money misappropriated that becomes a
\nprimary factor for awarding punishment; on the
\ncontrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the
\nprimary factor to be taken into consideration. In our
\nopinion, when a person is found guilty of
\nmisappropriating the corporation’s funds, there is
\nnothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or
\nfaith in such a person and awarding a punishment of
\ndismissal.”\n<\/p>\n
\t In Municipal Board of Pratabgarh and Another v. Mahendra Singh
\nChawla and Others<\/a> [(1982) 3 SCC 331], whereupon reliance has been placed
\nby Mr. Bhat,  the employee concerned, an Overseer,  having accepted  a
\npaltry amount of Rs. 200\/- was convicted and sentenced under Section 161
\n161 IPC.  Upon taking into consideration various circumstances including
\nthe fact that he was advanced in age, this Court modified the sentence of
\ndismissal from withholding of back wages from 31.08.1965 till the date of
\nreinstatement.  No law had been laid down therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is no doubt  true, as has been contended by Mr. Bhat , in some
\ncases,  this Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
\nArticle 136 of the Constitution of India, although it may be lawful to do so;
\nbut the circumstances mentioned by Mr. Bhat for not exercising the said
\njurisdiction do not appeal to us to accept the said contention.
\n\tIndiscipline in an educational institution should not be tolerated.  Only
\nbecause the Principal of the Institution had not been proceeded against, the
\nsame by itself cannot be a ground for not exercising the discretionary
\njurisdiction by us.  It may or may not be that the Management was
\nselectively vindictive but no Management can ignore a serious lapse on the
\npart of a teacher whose conduct should be an example to the pupils.
\n\tThis Court has come a long way from its earlier view points.  The
\nrecent trend in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between
\nthe earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the
\nworkmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast
\nindustrial growth of the country.  In several decisions of this Court it has
\nbeen noticed that how discipline at the workplaces\/ industrial undertaking
\nreceived a set back.  In view of the change in economic policy of the
\ncountry, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the
\ndiscipline with impunity.  Our country is governed by rule of law.  All
\nactions, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law.  Law declared by
\nthis Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as noticed in
\nthe decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal
\nwould not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by
\nthe employers unless an appropriate  case is made out therefor.  The
\nTribunal being  inferior to that of this court was bound to follow the
\ndecisions of this Court which are applicable to the fact of the present case in
\nquestion.  The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this Court
\nnor refuse to follow the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering
\nWorks (P) Ltd. And Another<\/a> [(1997) 6 SCC 450], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of
\njudicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to
\njudicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate
\ncourts including the High Courts to ignore the settled
\ndecisions and then to pass a judicial order which is
\nclearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial
\nadventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly
\ndeprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not
\napplying the settled principles and in passing whimsical
\norders which necessarily has the effect of granting
\nwrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It
\nis time that this tendency stops.”\n<\/p>\n
[See also Ajay Kumar Bhuyan and Ors. etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors. etc.
\n(2003) 1 SCC 707].\n<\/p>\n
 Yet again  in M\/s D. Navinchandra and Co., Bombay v. Union of
\nIndia and Ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 66],  Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was)
\nspeaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court stated the law in the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
“Generally legal positions laid down by the court
\nwould be binding on all concerned even though some of
\nthem have not been made parties nor were served nor any
\nnotice of such proceedings given.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be
\nsustained, which are set aside accordingly.  The appeals are allowed.
\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2554 of 2003 PETITIONER: Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/12\/2005 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3908,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005"},"wordCount":3908,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005","name":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T08:52:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hombe-gowda-edn-trust-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-16-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 16 December, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}