{"id":181754,"date":"2010-08-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-07-26T02:18:58","modified_gmt":"2014-07-25T20:48:58","slug":"the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nOATEO THIS THE 23\"} DAY OF AUGUST, 2010\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'Bt.E MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GO\\iQO.A_\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.24583\/2005 (t--KsRT;c)T   \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nThe Divisionat Controlter,\n\nK.S.R.T.C.,\n\nMysore Division (City) V _\nBannimantap Extension, \nMysore, by its Chief Law Officer.\"~._ ' _   \" \n\n  . .;;P.ETITIONER\n\n(By Sri N.K.Rarraesh,  _  '4 V\n\nSri Madaraje tirs,   \nAged 38 years, ' \"\nS\/O. Puttaraj.,Urs, ~_\nMooggarui KOppa|,u,\"\n\n v  She'ttyha{ti post, \"Mia.E.ay\u00aba!Ii Taiuk,\n\n :Ma,ntdya\"'!',)'&istrit;t.\n\n...RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
 {at-.._Sri'”i};”:–:._i~i’\u00e9i’i<, Adv.)<\/p>\n
 Tiiis writ petition is iiieci under Artictes 225 and 227<\/p>\n
 the _Constitution of India praying to set aside the
\n A i,,V\u00bbir*npi,i'gne'd award at Annexure – A dated 17"' January 2005
\n  passezti by the Labour Court, Mysore in I.I.D No.12\/2001.<\/p>\n
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the<\/p>\n
T  "COL: rt made the folfowing.\n<\/p>\n
QRQER<\/p>\n
Respondent\/workman white manning a bus bearing<\/p>\n
registration No.KA~O9-F-1899 on 28.07.1988 <\/p>\n
to have caused an accident by dashing head’~\u00a7on.:a.ij’a’instTj <\/p>\n
another bus bearing registration i\\io”.”KA-O\u00a2_1″.;F–\u00a78\u00a5ii._aVnd7.as’g<\/p>\n
a result, 14 passengers wereVinjurA1ed_ 8besides’V_d.amage–..s’~to”.<\/p>\n
the vehicles invotved in the ac’ci_d’ent. ‘iii.e ‘w.oi_*i__<man" was a V<\/p>\n
trainee driver. He was ~st.oppeid"' s"romVV"'service_"i3yV-an order
\ndated 05.09.1998. A sh8o\u00a7\u00bb:,'ca'u.s\u00e9.Vnotic\u00e9,s:iau-c 29.10.1998
\nwas issued seekin;g:-_hisi,exbia.na.tion'_:asito why his services
\nshould noti"'wf:t'i;i_,'which a reply was
\nsubrnitted._ 'The workman's name was<\/p>\n
removed\u00e9f'r.orn,th'e_ 'fist\u00bb–o'f"..\u00bb,.trainee drivers on 19.12.2000.<\/p>\n
 Theqivtorkman "raised a: dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of<\/p>\n
 indutjstriiait.Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court at<\/p>\n
iV!yso_re.'"7"_~fE7_he.;'"oetitioner filed objections to the claim<\/p>\n
8 _ statement 'of; the workman contending that the workman<\/p>\n
 Lwas,i'esVp"onsibEe for the accident and in view of the enquiry<\/p>\n
  conducted and the outcome, the order of termination is<\/p>\n
8 "justified. Labour Court raised the issues. Workman<\/p>\n
'ex,<\/p>\n
deposed as WW–1 and exhibits W~1 to W~7 were marked.<\/p>\n
For the petitioner\/management, MW-1 depos_edVsi'-..4'_:and<\/p>\n
through him, exhibits M–I to 54-5 were <\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence on record, Ia-tJo*ur1]co'uirt'~has "= it<\/p>\n
passed the award directing reinstatementof.wo.rlt-man'-li._i_n'to_A<\/p>\n
service to the same post whic'n…_he as  of <\/p>\n
termination and to pay baclc_vvages_s fro'r'n.:i_the Vidate of
\ntermination till the  of a;;ct.;ua-l_'s'rei~n_statement, also
\nentitling the wori<mans_.to.:'_a*l.l co'n.s'e"gu\u00e9ntial benefits.<\/p>\n
M a nageme nt   the said awa rd.\n<\/p>\n
2;.’ iiii  ieagrned advocate appearing
\nfor the’petitioner’conten_:d*ed..–that, the respondent being a<\/p>\n
trainee driv’er,s_”oiigVhttow’have driven the vehicle carefully<\/p>\n
‘J’~..anci[_\ufb01vigiillantiy a’nd’*”since the accident has occurred on<\/p>\n
g_’_aCco’unt’-ofirashs.and negligent driving of the vehicle by<\/p>\n
hir1’l__’,:”iti’iegproceedings held against him being lawful, his<\/p>\n
”._name was rightly removed from the list of trainee drivers,<\/p>\n
“:lf”i.*.ritsh'”which the labour court ought not to have interfered<\/p>\n
  and the impugned order is perverse and illegal, calling for<\/p>\n
V4<\/p>\n
interference. Atternativeiy, learned counsel contendedthat<\/p>\n
the award of 100% backwages from the _datfe..l_l’~ovf<\/p>\n
termination till the date of reinstatement is <\/p>\n
Eliegai.\n<\/p>\n
3. Sri V.S.i\\Eaii<, learned advocate appear%n'g=.4.'fer"\u00ab<\/p>\n
the respondent, on the otherhand conterici"edV\u00e9V'"th'at,' the
\nmanagement had arb.itrarEly_\u00ab"a'n'\u00a2i terrninvated the
\nservice of the  any material
\nevidence with;'~'re:gaZ'i*d   It was a
\ncase of no  enquiry authority or
\nbeforeiithe"i.a:i?vQKiVi53:r\u00a7Vfjoujrttiandixh\u00e9nzce the labour court is
\njustifiedkin  is no material on record to<\/p>\n
corneto thl\u00e9~vconcEusio=n treat the accident was due to rash<\/p>\n
"V"\u00ab..yand:'i1eggiigent d'riv'in*g" of the vehicle by the first party.<\/p>\n
 i_\u00bb_.L"ea_rne'ci'-cou"rise'i:contended that, the workman though was<\/p>\n
 ancillwiiriilirig to discharge his duty, was prevented by<\/p>\n
'*._the maniagenient from discharge of duties and hence the<\/p>\n
 court is justified in directing reinstatement and<\/p>\n
  awarding of backwages with consequential benefits.<\/p>\n
'V<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
4. On the contentions urged and the record of the
\nwrit petition, the following two questions ar\u00e9seffor<\/p>\n
consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether on the facts and circumsi’ances;w.   <\/p>\n
the labour court was justi\ufb01edin interfering’ * ‘<\/p>\n
with the order of termfnatioIe2._ ‘dated
\n19.12.2000 refusing employment tn”the – ‘<\/p>\n
workman from 20.\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the awardi5g\u00ab..af.packwages and
\nconsequentiai bene\ufb01ts ‘by the Iabou’r*co”urt
\nis justi\ufb01ed?   _    <\/p>\n
Rg-g;;\u00a7\u00a7;!;iQr:N9._;M_1w:  V<\/p>\n
5.  u}fol’rm\u00e9n has at\u00e9poseaans ww-1. Exhibits<\/p>\n
W–1   The workman was
\nprosecuted .by  causing of the alleged<\/p>\n
accident. In’dispu.teVdly*,_3tt’:*e prosecution has failed and the<\/p>\n
 has been=-acquitted of the offences punishable<\/p>\n
  337 8: 338 I.P.C. For the management,<\/p>\n
 Trvaff’i’c.:_7: Inspector of Hunsur has deposed.<\/p>\n
“V.,’Undispuitedly, MW–1 was not present when the accident<\/p>\n
“:3f”\u00a2ccu”rred. The accident being an alleged head-on collusion<\/p>\n
 between two vehicles belonging to the corporation, the<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
best witness who could have deposed with regard to the
\nrash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the workman<\/p>\n
was the driver who was manning the vehicle Vbeariing<\/p>\n
registration No.KA–O1–F–6341. For the reasons  <\/p>\n
to the petitioner\/management, the said  <\/p>\n
been examined. MW–1 evident?\n<\/p>\n
manner in which the accidentoccurred is of nobasvsistancei. <\/p>\n
The documents produced areilrnere ‘reports  some
\nauthorities. It is in   court has
\nrightly held that,_without_V_thAeVre’V__Vbegingsan\ufb01ljvglevidence before
\nthe Disciplinary\ufb01guthoriity  of occurrence
\nof accid__ent,~  gtiie’:’rep–orts, which were disputed by
\nthe worl<hrn-an,   could not have terminated<\/p>\n
theggsgervice of "th.e':worl:<:man. It has further observed that<\/p>\n
ViAneitVher_aany%:'sketch nor the panchanarna of the piace of<\/p>\n
1"a.cc'id_en't' Thais  produced either before the Discipiinary<\/p>\n
A:ithorit.y:'or'before the Labour Court. Even now also, no<\/p>\n
V. .i,.:'rnat_erial"' produced to show that the accident was on<\/p>\n
  'account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the<\/p>\n
 "workman. Since it is a case of no evidence, the labour<\/p>\n
V\/..\n<\/p>\n
court was justified in setting aside the order of termination<\/p>\n
and directing reinstatement of the workman into service.<\/p>\n
Rg-gggggign Ng.g:\n<\/p>\n
6. The concept of awarding <\/p>\n
iabour court\/tribunal white directing…4reir1’st’a’tenfi\u00bben’t.’_’_has_<\/p>\n
undergone a big change. It is now wgeiiiv settiedf:<\/p>\n
awarding of backwages is’._n”a.t automatic, o:sf””-natiiral <\/p>\n
consequence of reinstat_ementA.i..Thp’e._aw.arding’ ofggbgatkwages
\ndepends upon the facts’ _c_:iVi}.cun5’stf_a.n’ces of each case<\/p>\n
and not to be grant_ed n1’echanic’aiE.liy.._x it<\/p>\n
 ._  HARYANA ROADWAYS vs.
\nRUDHAN<\/a>“SI_’NiGvH}*regiortedat 2oo5 (5) sec 591, it has
\nbeengih\ufb01eiid as foiiows: V:\n<\/p>\n
A ‘ 2 ,   is no rule of thumb that in every case where
\n.vI1’ii’IVIAft.i\u00e9r1il’ia1 Tribunal gives a finding that the
\n terrnination of service was in violation of Section 25–F<\/p>\n
 of” the Act, entire back wages shouid be awarded. A
\nhost of factors like the manner and method of selection
\n fffand appointment i.e. whether after proper
\nadvertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications<\/p>\n
from the ernpioyrnent exchange, nature of<\/p>\n
‘ix<\/p>\n
appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term.<\/p>\n
daily wage, temporary or permanent in characteitany<\/p>\n
special quali\ufb01cation required for the job and”<\/p>\n
should be weighed and balanced in  .\n<\/p>\n
regarding award of back wages. One of.”  <\/p>\n
factors, which has to be taken into conside”1’atiori,\u00ab’is””.<\/p>\n
the length of service, which <\/p>\n
with the employer. If i’he\u00ab–…wor1’ce_1a11  Va <\/p>\n
considerable period of seryice and~.h’i’s–VserVices are
\nwrongfully tenninated, lie’  awarded: full or
\npartial back wages”1iee.pingi’g–ir}.  fact that at his
\nage and the._quali\ufb01_c.ation him he may not
\nbe in a po5:’-iition  getanother’-ernployment. However,
\nwhere “th_e itctalv  =5′(p)1′:f_\/ service rendered by a
\n  award of back wages for
\nthe coinp’l’et_e_V:peri:id’\u00abi_,e_. from the date of termination
\ntillthe date  which our experience shows<\/p>\n
is often quite 1’arge_,5 would be wholly inappropriate.
\n‘1’\\notherV’imp:ortant factor, which requires to be taken
\n consideration is the nature of employment. A<\/p>\n
3   .,:service of permanent character cannot be
\ni.  to short or intermittent daily~wage
\n employment though it may be for 240 days in a<\/p>\n
calendar year”.\n<\/p>\n
 The burden of placing the proof to award<\/p>\n
 ….backwages initiatty lies on the emptoyee to show that he<\/p>\n
‘9\/<\/p>\n
,.a<\/p>\n
was not gainfully employed. If he places evidence in___that<\/p>\n
regard, the empioyer can lead rebuttal evidenc(–:i;~._::’~4.fl_”liie<\/p>\n
claim statement fiied by the employee does<\/p>\n
pleading with regard to non–empl.oyrnen_t;””‘”Inf;yliew.of’ <\/p>\n
Section 106 of Evidence Act, a plealis ifeq.dired_’to:’be:”raise’di_:<\/p>\n
by the workman. In the absence of lptea,  be <\/p>\n
evidence and even otherwisellf’creditale.l*prVoof,_? is not<\/p>\n
forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
9.  in;   award on issue
\nNos.2 & 3 of the record i.e.,
\npleadingMandiv5.eywi:ciet1c:ei.Q”0″lihe””iavbour court by merely
\nmakiryd-_3  reported at ILR 2003<\/p>\n
Kar 3961 hast’ held AAt–hat=,”: workman is entitled to 100%<\/p>\n
A. Labotirwcvourt has not noticed the catena of<\/p>\n
 by the Apex Court subsequent to the<\/p>\n
de:.__isionv_oiifiiihich it has placed reiiance and thus has<\/p>\n
‘<._comm~itte.d material error insofar the finding on entitlement<\/p>\n
 workman to 100% backwages.\n<\/p>\n
‘ix<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
10. The workman being a trainee driver, after his<\/p>\n
name has been removed from the list may not ha*v*e,”-kept<\/p>\n
quite till he was reinstated into service. <\/p>\n
petitioner\/management. He must have4woi”l{ed” <\/p>\n
elsewhere. Keeping in view if_”th”e ‘=._n~a_t’ure<\/p>\n
employment\/driving and si’n:<_:_e-~._theA"~work_ma'nA~~.i._'had 5the <\/p>\n
opportunity to work as  drive::r:froi'n_vthe.'d*at:eAAofvV5removal
\nof his name from  f:}ra.in'eVe:.,dri,ver till he was
\nreinstated, the i4nco__me   the relevant
\nperiod on  of al-tern,aVt\u00a7f:hiemplloyhoent being a
\nrelevant ….  been taken into
\nconside.rationAi,b'y.the  'court. It is in this context,
\nthere to'hVav\u00e9i,bee'n.'i'specific pleading regarding the<\/p>\n
workhnali. not "being gainfully employed and also credible<\/p>\n
    the pleading. Since the findings with<\/p>\n
lureglaafd of backwages is the one rendered<\/p>\n
with'out"–.'sti'pp'ort of any material, the same is perverse and<\/p>\n
.,,VViiiiega| and hence calls for interference i.e., with regard to<\/p>\n
it  awarding of 100% backwages.\n<\/p>\n
I1<\/p>\n
11. The management has reinstated the workman<\/p>\n
pursuant to the interim order dated 24.11.2005 passedhy<\/p>\n
this court. The workman continues to <\/p>\n
employment of the petitioner. Taking the*’said’~..  <\/p>\n
also into consideration and the fact th-at_}*ernov.a’i—ofname.2<\/p>\n
Mfrom the fist of trainee driver’ was ilit-:.gai,. in <\/p>\n
would meet the ends of justice to 2′ suljstjantvigate the
\nbackwages payabie atV2SR%_a:s agai.nst\u00bb.i’1.UD\u00b0\/o.
\nIn the res:–.ilt.—_:pet.iti’o[nstands ailowed in part.
\nThe awardElfthe__:\u00a7iabo’ur’:cou:t impuged herein to
\nthe’ extent l’of”d.i.i1je_cti’rig”‘ rei~nVs’taterne’nt’ with continuity of
\nservice and ‘conseql3’e’ri~ti’avi\u00ab..V_:benefits remain undisturbed.<\/p>\n
However. payrnen’t of”,-bac_ll<walges shalt be 25% as against<\/p>\n
3V'1'00\u00b0\/c':r–.5Wa*rdedg.by the"*'i'a'b'our court. The impugned award<\/p>\n
Vst_and._s" imaeii\ufb01edi actprdingiy.<\/p>\n
"No o__r'der\u00ab-as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
2 nae<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE OATEO THIS THE 23″} DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’Bt.E MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GO\\iQO.A_ WRIT PETITION NO.24583\/2005 (t–KsRT;c)T 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-181754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - 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-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-25T20:48:58+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=\"10 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-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\\\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-25T20:48:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1911,\"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-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\\\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-25T20:48:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\\\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - 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-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-25T20:48:58+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-25T20:48:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010"},"wordCount":1911,"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-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010","name":"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-25T20:48:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-controller-k-s-r-t-c-vs-sri-madaraje-urs-so-puttaraj-urs-on-23-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Controller K S R T C vs Sri Madaraje Urs S\/O Puttaraj Urs on 23 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/181754","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=181754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}