{"id":159527,"date":"2009-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-28T15:17:45","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T09:47:45","slug":"the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J Gunjal<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \n\nDATED THIS THE 1535 DAY OF JANUARY 2_Q(%:f\u00a7T% ~ u\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:'AJfP  V\nWRIT PETITION No.15374\/2:)o7 \u00a2,Iw; : % \n\nWRIT PETITION No,117a\/2003    \n\nBETWEEN :\n\nThe Management,  \nPunacha Pariyalthadka, -.    \nAided Higher Primaly  \" \n\nD.K. Dist1'ict_-::3745;fV281~,  _   1;:\nRcpmscnwdibyiizsh    \"\nCorI'espo11(1cI\"1't_  \"  ,  \"  '\nSmt.Ushalaksh131i Mg \n\n...PE'I'I'FIONER\n% (Common in both)\n\n(By Szi.I{}i2am lI;:3I\"-v1_:.1i:~. 8';' Assouates, Advs.)\n\nhi wxgxa. \n\n  '  ,\n\n\u00ab Rep:ve\"ae11a!;c:d'by its Sectary to\n\n_ .  1 ' 4. _ __ Veovexxztazgutf Appellate Authority\n'  & Secondary Edumtion),\n\nducaiion Department,\n\n-ffM.':3.Bui1ding, Bangal0m-560 001.\n\nV.TI;he Commissioner,\n\n\" ~ \" Department of Public Insm.1cti.ons,\n\nNrupathunga Road,\nBangalore --- 560 00 1.\n\n\n\n _ Bangalore.\n\nI  '    * xcation Omccr,\n\n-3-\n\n3. The Director (Priznaxy Education),\nDcparmcnt of Public Instructions,\nNrupathunga Road,\n\nBangalore ~--- 560 001.\n\n4. B.Ramakrishn.a Bhat,\n\nS\/o.Sri.Mahabala Bhat,\n\nAsst. Teacher, Punacha _\nPariyalthadka Aided  \nPunacha, Bantwal Taluk,   A f: '\nD.K.I)istrict - 5'74 281.\n\n(By Sri.B.Ma.n.ohar, AGA' td'.R-4. A    \nSri.0.Shdvarama. Bhat, Adv. for R4,, _ \nSri.M.R.Sha\ufb01cndra,     \n\nInW.P.No.1178l2008  \n\n1. The state\nRepI'e'$_en\u00a3edVbjritS\" \"\"  ' -\nUnder  \nEd11catio1*14_I)cp~a1*1J:t.ic1::t;,\"*--....\n Eduqafioil, k\u00a2I.S'.Buil(\ufb01ng,\n\nX . Eamvak. Emma Taluk,\n ...RESPONDEN'l'S\n\n(By S\ufb01.0.S 3 Blm, Adv.\n-  \" for inttpkzadjzlg applicant\n. in I.A.i\/O8 8; i.A.iI\/2008,\nSri.M.R.8hai1cndra, Adv. for\n\nImpleading applicant in i.A.I\/2()i)8)\n\nW.P. No.15874\/2007 is \ufb01led under Atticlce 226 of\nthe Constitution of Imiia with a prayer to quash the\norder impugned dated 30.08.2007 passed by the\n\n \n\n\n\n-3-\n\nAppellate Authority cum Under Secretary to\nGovernment (Primary 8: Secondary Education, in Apiteal\nNo.40\/06 Ed 280 PMC 2006), as per Annexure 'Afancl\n\nconsequently to set-aside the order dated \"~ V.\npassed by the Director, Public Instructions,  ' .\n\nof Karnataka in Proceedings No.O'7(6)\/PriM,__ 'Eg1n,iMisc4 Q  \n\n59\/2002-O3 as per Annexure 'D'.   \n\nW.P. No.1173\/2003 is \ufb011ed *--.un;iier: Amaze\"\n\n22V6'*--~of1vo.jA\n\nthe Constitution of India with a prayer. to   '\n\norder dated 5.12.2007 issued\ufb02tyy the Rzm \"\n\ncancellation of the approval of \"Knead -3Moeter\nper Annexure 'A'. .     \n\nas\nas\n\nThese Writ petitioiis\ufb02   for  , this\n\nday, the Court made ttxe_fo:l.'1\u00a3:s\\ri'r_1.g'; *  V _\n f9P;o'ER If  AA \n\n   of by mis\n\ncommon order. \" _\n\n   \"question required to be decided in\n\n 'is, whether the appointment of the 4th\n   Master of the petitioner-Institutiora\n_    interfered and also as to who should be\n\n     the post of Head Master.\n\nV[    The dispute arose Way back in the year 1991 as\n\n  who should be appointed as the Head Master of the\n\n\n\nbeen set at naught and the claim of the 431 respondent<\/pre>\n
was directed to be considered. Inciderntally, it is <\/p>\n
noticed that this Court, while con\ufb01rming the ~ 2<\/p>\n
the Tribunal has obscured thus:<\/p>\n
‘In the matter  3-;o3.qne  L.\n<\/p>\n
can claim as a matte?’ .\u00b0-f    \u00ab.\n<\/p>\n
promotion to a    _\ncandidature of alt    \n\nhas to be   \nrespondent   than\n\n<\/pre>\n
the 2.} %;.\u00ae .fea;Qo\u00a7:..\u00a7  come<\/p>\n
on hi\ufb01ivhy he was
\nnegzewtea; %   by the<\/p>\n
 an a proper and<\/p>\n
.   and not an arbitrary
\n   M of it. A person more
\n  r\u00a7icfey …be deprived of his right to<\/p>\n
*  gr there is anything found<\/p>\n
.V  Nothinghasoomeonrecord
\n AA :  it could be oonsidened that
\n No.2 here was not eligibte or
\n was not liable to be
\nThepresuntption thatafcwourwas done to
\nrespondent No.2 because he is the sun of<\/p>\n
 legal remedy against the decision of the<\/p>\n
  273\/<\/p>\n
.5.\n<\/p>\n
the Correspondent on the face of it appears
\ntobejusttj\ufb01ed’. i\ufb01wdaimofrespondent<\/p>\n
No.2 war be considered from the date the
\npost of Head Master became vacant
\nproper order would be passed  ‘_ V
\nmonth from the date of  _V  in<\/p>\n
ofthis order.’<\/p>\n
This observation   the<\/p>\n
Revision Petition has  Since tiieuorder of<\/p>\n
the Tribunal as well   given effect<\/p>\n
to, the 431   proceedings in<\/p>\n
    the Execution
\n Wes’  the claim of the 431
\nrespondcm;   The said order was
\n by  petitioiier before this Court in ().R.P.<\/p>\n
 allowed the revision petition<\/p>\n
  sefaasicte’ tiieiiorder of the Executing Court on the
\ni   direc\ufb01on issued by the Executing Court
\n   given e\ufb01ect to. But however, liberty was<\/p>\n
  V  _ it  to the 4* rwpondent to pursue his<\/p>\n
– 7 _
\npetitioner~Management taken against him at its meeting<\/p>\n
held on 27.01.2000. V _<\/p>\n
4. Consequently, another round of
\ncommenced inasmuch as the petitioner
\nappeal in Appeal No.38\/2000 bgs:foze\u00ab .   ”
\nAuthority. The Appellate Authority
\nseveral proceedings, which
\nthe appeal of the 4*’?   the
\nDmetor of Public Insuue\ufb01oe
\nthe entire issue   to promote
\nthe 4th  * A copy of the said order<\/p>\n
is at     to thereof, the D1I’ecto’ r<\/p>\n
  that  meet in the school is<\/p>\n
  the post of Head Master and if<\/p>\n
 _ V No; 1-  the post, it should go on to No.2<\/p>\n
 A and if the post it should go on to No.3 and<\/p>\n
e The said order was questioned by the petitioner<\/p>\n
  N No.3\/2004. The Appellate Authority once<\/p>\n
V’    having regard to the conduct and also the relevant<\/p>\n
rules relating to the appointment of Head Master as\/\ufb02<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
.. 9 –\n<\/p>\n
is only an o\ufb01’ shoot of the first petition. If the petitioner
\nsucceeds or otherwise in the first petition, consequentfml
\norder would follow in the second petition.\n<\/p>\n
6. Mr.I{.Ram Bhat, learned counsel ”
\nthe petitioner would strenuously contend.    1 1 ‘V
\npromotion\/appointment to the  N
\nwithin the realm of the admh\ufb01suo\ufb01oo’ the
\nof the School, not\\nrithstanding”V’i~};\u00a7’\u00e9,’ feet  it
\naided school. He mus? ‘that <\/p>\n
proeeedi11gs  4’33 respondent for<\/p>\n
misdemeaflor-I   ‘y\ufb01sgs  punished inasmuch<\/p>\n
as he was  days. He further submits<\/p>\n
,f’ti”1at   “is better quali\ufb01ed and more<\/p>\n
  of Head Master. Hence, submits<\/p>\n
L  fIze:’Vorde1;s::p$3;ssed by all the authorities are liable to<\/p>\n
  e  e Villterfefegii<\/p>\n
  Mr.O.Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel<\/p>\n
 V   for the 4% respondent would strmmously<\/p>\n
  contend that right from the year 1991, the 4*’-*1%<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
respondent has been running from pillar to post
\ninasmuch as right up the Apex Court and the claim\u00bb of
\nthe 4th resp\ufb02ndent has been upheld by the A. V.
\nHe further submits that the 4″! mspondeii\ufb01
\nquali\ufb01ed both wucatiomwise aiitiii
\nhead the Institution as a
\nsubmits that Sriharsha Shasti:*’,;V:VV:i:s*: cleselj  ihe ‘V
\nSecretary of the Ifls\ufb01tlkiii\ufb01ll. eubixiiis  the
\nimpugned Orders ‘are     <\/p>\n
8, ~   “\ufb01iiditzional Government
\nAdvocate.’  State, submits that the<\/p>\n
Grant\u00a7ii1–aid”~~  to be mad with the<\/p>\n
3 V’  Aet,  the criterias for appointment of<\/p>\n
  are enumerated. He supports the<\/p>\n
 ‘V  and submits that what has been done<\/p>\n
 i:I1c”a_{1t}:1I’ii:ies is to mow the procedure oar the<\/p>\n
   of Head Master as laid either under the<\/p>\n
 ’11’  Ediication Act or in the Grantwin—a.id Code. <\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
X<\/p>\n
 E”;   appmved by the Apex Court.<\/p>\n
 V’  as the 4m respondent are quali\ufb01ed. In
\n guys to% be noticed that the 4:2: respondent is slightly<\/p>\n
%   inasmuch as both the claimants have
\n V    their Post Graduatiorx and have obtained a B.Ed.<\/p>\n
education also. The additional quali\ufb01cation of the 4th %<\/p>\n
-11-<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
9. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as<\/p>\n
wel} as the 4*” respondent are litigating sinee 19’9_1
\nregarding appointment to the post of Head ~
\nhas been observed by this Court in
\nproceedings, which has been
\nwould clearly indicate that       A
\nthe 4’33 respondent cannot  e.    to<\/p>\n
be appointed or :\u00ab Itiaster,
\nnevertheless a    in the<\/p>\n
earliest of   the 4*
\nrespondtg-;V;’:’1tVTVi’f;v; ”  the appointment of<\/p>\n
3111′ 33131?’   hoe basis was not on<\/p>\n
merits; but on.’  ether exmaneous circumstances.<\/p>\n
  to be noticed that both Sr1hars’ ha<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
..}3..\n<\/p>\n
Secondary Educational institutions) Rules, 1999
\nAnnexure – V1 with reference to Rule 3 would indicate<\/p>\n
that the promotion to the post of Head Master ea’ <\/p>\n
Mistress shall be made on the basis of 4.  <\/p>\n
teacher and seniority is to be deterI3:u’L:1ed   x<\/p>\n
the number of years of continuous  <\/p>\n
of entry into the cadre of
\nGrade-I or Grade-II as V the    his  in<\/p>\n
dispute that the 4*” h’ It  rendered<\/p>\n
continuous   years. Even<\/p>\n
0thCI’WiSt:_;  I_II_~  is made abundantly<\/p>\n
clear that tige’  win Act as a Head<\/p>\n
Master’ of then On both counts, the<\/p>\n
atela\u00e9hv  for appointment as the Head<\/p>\n
12.~~jCo1V1sequently, I am of the Vi\u00a3’.”W that the<\/p>\n
\u00ab   orders passed by all the authorities mnnot be<\/p>\n
   Having’ regard to these facts, I am of the View<\/p>\n
  ..t?;’1at there is no merit in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
Petition stands rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-14..\n<\/p>\n
13. In so far as the Writ petition 1178\/2008 is<\/p>\n
concerned, What. is questioned is the ondorscniofig<\/p>\n
issued by the Competent Authority  _<\/p>\n
petitioner — Institution to give e\ufb01hct  the   u  <\/p>\n
earlier. Since the orders passod <\/p>\n
Authorities are con\ufb01rmed,  o:lV””i:!1’\u00e9  <\/p>\n
impugled endorsementfalso
\nthe following order is     u  V<\/p>\n
Both the p\u00a2:::i\u00a2nsAsza\u00a7;:1 ” <\/p>\n
A11   stand<\/p>\n
CoIn’;5ii,4:’.\u00a7.11r;cVot_’ ‘\u00a3\ufb01.e\u00bb*  of the authorities withm<\/p>\n
 _a of   from today.\n<\/p>\n
  14o m.  B.Manohar, learned Additional<\/p>\n
   appearing for respondents 1 to 3<\/p>\n
 w.p.’m; 15374\/2007 is permitted to \ufb01le memo of<\/p>\n
 T Within four weeks.\n<\/p>\n
S\u00e9fm<\/p>\n
SP8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 Author: Ajit J Gunjal IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 1535 DAY OF JANUARY 2_Q(%:f\u00a7T% ~ u BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE:’AJfP V WRIT PETITION No.15374\/2:)o7 \u00a2,Iw; : % WRIT PETITION No,117a\/2003 BETWEEN : The […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-28T09:47:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T09:47:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1033,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\",\"name\":\"The Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T09:47:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-28T09:47:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T09:47:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009"},"wordCount":1033,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009","name":"The Management Punacha ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T09:47:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-management-punacha-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Management Punacha … vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/159527","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=159527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}