{"id":234950,"date":"2011-05-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-21T18:32:58","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T13:02:58","slug":"sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
mrs sermon COMING ON FOR 1>RL.H.sAR::~\u00ab:, :'-\u00abem-_'e*\nGROUP. THIS BAY. THE cows'? MA{)E'1'HE Fo1,1,0$as'\u00a3:~2ad\n\n'Transport Corporation remained absent fretrpduty \u00a7;V.e.f. ',\n\n20.5.2003<\/pre>\n
 to 31.10.2003 {\u00a3%i:\u00a7: o1;: pV1′;i01{_VVApver1;’I:1\u00a7issi0n er
\nsanction of ieave,   evtkdivsciplinary
\nproceeding by issuing   (it. 3.10.2003,
\nfollowed by  Vvoffieer who after
\nextending’  of hearing submitted
\na  The disciplinary
\nautI10i*it3}04’_ on’: assessment of the facts
\n evidence on recordg held the
\n prox:;e'<i :21;f}_e1'.%1ax\/'ir1g regard is the past record 0f
\n0  the petitioner was visited with minor
\n  unautherised abseneeg eoupled with the<\/p>\n
fast t1":st"i\u00a71ere was no justifiable defence for absence<\/p>\n
 ~d.u_e ii)'. medical treatment, passed the order dt.<\/p>\n
 'giE\u00a7.&:Q,2\u20acIO5 dismissing the peiitisner frem service,<\/p>\n
\u00e9giiie<\/p>\n
2':\n<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
2. That order was (tailed in <\/p>\n
initiating conciliation proceedings under the iridtizstrigii ” <\/p>\n
Disputes Act, 1947, for short’A7I’1}\u00ab <\/p>\n
Conciliation Officer returned a i’a_i1:ure re}\u00a7ort,’v <\/p>\n
which the State Got7ernrherit’;..e\u00bbby .Vor_C.1er._;h20O8″‘<\/p>\n
referred for adjudication,  \ufb01tiispute, to the
\nLabour Court,  gegistered as
\nRef.No.2Si\/3QC)r3.\u00bb._’  Vtelaim statement
\nwhich   statement of the
\nresp0vr:.r5i\u00a26:riute~e\u00a7ori–i3;:’_  Qorrporation, arraigned as
\nseeorid part\u00a7}t”‘vi;i:-..the\ufb01pro’eeeding. In the premise of the
\np1eadihgE:’_’_’of  the Labour Court framed an<\/p>\n
adriitiiohai  over the validity of the domestic<\/p>\n
  .ji5orties having let in evidence, both oral and<\/p>\n
  Labour court by order (it. 18312009<\/p>\n
ari\u00e9;we_red. the additional issue in the affirrriative, holding<\/p>\n
 the w\ufb01jomestie eriquiry as fair and proper.<\/p>\n
  ‘i’.he.reafterwards, the petitioner was permitted to addtiee<\/p>\n
__evideriee ori vietirriieatiori, wheriee, he wag further<\/p>\n
exemiiie\u00e9  WW~i whiie the respoziderii,\u00bbCerporatior:<\/p>\n
iei<\/p>\n
examined one Lokesh Shetty as MXVQ and r\ufb01zzrked<\/p>\n
three documents as EX.M-27 to M30.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Labour Court: haxring\u00bbvregar\u00a71.Vre’  V’<\/p>\n
on record and evidence both<\/p>\n
declined to accept the  tire .petiri0r1er””the{t his”?<\/p>\n
absence from service.\u00bb\u00abjrlrirrgflihel’reieyfar\ufb01  was due
\nto 111 health. Labour””ee’:_:rr’ fact that the
\npetitioner   lreriishment in the
\npast  e’i.rC.u’mstanees so as to
\ninterfere”  of dismissal and
\naee0r{i.:r1’g’1yV  108962009 rejected the
\nrefereriee” =    petition.\n<\/p>\n
 iearrred Counsel for the petitioner advances<\/p>\n
 . the ik:.i.1e.\u00a7x}’::itg’. eontentions:<\/p>\n
  the Labour Ceurt rejected the xerex copies<\/p>\n
ejfvthe medieai certificates er: a strange 1″ees0r1ir1g by<\/p>\n
 “\u00ab-rtaliing upen the petitioner to gsreduee the<\/p>\n
‘Aereeeriptiener Aeeeixding is the Eearned eeurrsei ihe
\nerigirraie ef the med\u00e9eai eeriifieares were harrdec\u00e9 ever<\/p>\n
aiergg wit\u00e9\u00e9 the Eeiter seeking leave of absence eshieh<\/p>\n
\u00a7;.2%i;~<\/p>\n
D ‘ -‘~_’V’. ”
\nthe authority failed to Consider. It ‘ij\u00e9w’f$I,}”‘*JZ}\u20acf:_.V <\/p>\n
contended that when a rmedieat certificate is
\nthere was no reason for the Labour. eetirt the ‘d–i.:3he’Ii.efv’_\u20ac’
\nthat Certificate.  ._   .V   <\/p>\n
b) It is next eentendedthat the petit;ior1e_’:f had’ Iezwe\u00e9 ‘
\nto his Credit and that ti1e_ ‘\u00a3ee.ve  riot
\neensidered by the authority a h _ b<\/p>\n
C) It is lastly’ :_e\u00e9:5r1ter_;t:1e:1VA th\u00a71t.vtAt–he Labozjr Court
\nfailed to exercise iteVext1′::~01:d;ina;ry~–j;u.rie;x;ii<:tion Lmder
\nSection 11uA\u00abo_fthe-'Aet; V V' "\n<\/p>\n
5.   _.t’he”‘4’V_L’earr:ed counsel for the
\nresp0nd–er_1t~~Cerp\u00a7>rati_en_Vtcert-tenets that there being no
\ndiSp1Jti\u20ac over fjeti-t_i40ne1*fS”‘ab:3’ence from duty, the burden
\nwas on the”pvetitir\ufb01xnterttt prove that there was sufficient<\/p>\n
justification Vihxfwthe absence. Learned Counsel refutes<\/p>\n
 the eetrttenvtion that the petitioner had leave to his credit<\/p>\n
 .5;ii\u00a71.  leave application enclosing medical<\/p>\n
eert:fic.:’$ate:;”‘ for eeneiderationt According to the learned<\/p>\n
  A.CQtlI1Sf\u20aci.. there is net 3 titre ef evidence placed befere the<\/p>\n
‘ ”’._VE::s;;’:uiry Officer or before the L:’:1b{}i}I Court in support of<\/p>\n
the $316: eenterztiens.\n<\/p>\n
32%<\/p>\n
6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6. Learned counsel points out to the explanation<\/p>\n
to articles of charge to contend that there <\/p>\n
assertion ever leave to his credit nor subrni’s~sVicn_i’c.\u00abf leave ‘ <\/p>\n
applications’ It is next contendedthat lpetiticner<\/p>\n
having remained absent for a }5e_1’ied of  ~d’ays”acnd,<\/p>\n
the past record of serw\u00a7ice;. adniittedly,lidlilsclosedll<\/p>\n
unauthorised absen’e’e_ cndll..’geca.;siensVin” the past<\/p>\n
leading to imposition cf   the burden
\nwas hea\\fily\u00a7,.u’nci3c establish by placing
\nrelevant  ls.nb–stantia1 legal evidence
\nthat there  nor lack of interest in
\ndischlargle.l_ Of  lastly contended that any<\/p>\n
interference ‘ vyfi-thl’-._ tlie punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
” ‘~  tz\u00bb\u00a7n:’tan1etI,ents is ‘rnisplaced sympathy and benevolence.<\/p>\n
it  heard the learned counsel fer the<\/p>\n
partie.g;.’,’pe’rused the pleadings and examined the award<\/p>\n
  there is no dispute that the petitioner<\/p>\n
‘llrernained nnautherisedljg absent; from 26.5.2093 tn<\/p>\n
 , i\u20ac}\u00a72GG.”?:. ‘there is alse ne dispute that, the petitiener<\/p>\n
eiaizned as have sni’ie:*ed {rent ;’anneiiee {rein iZ8.5’2SGfji<\/p>\n
Esta<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
?  V’<\/p>\n
to 26.6.2003 and was treated by e w*i11ag’e:.~\u00abqI4\u00a71ej1_ttijlltid<\/p>\n
that on 28.6.2003 he suffered fFOHI,’.Vt_}’TphOiti:”<\/p>\n
7.8.2003 whence he took t1~eatfheht’3et”._Pri1\ufb01eti*j{fietetttix<\/p>\n
Centre (PHC), Sharavanabelagels ” . end tttvffttfthrafv  V’<\/p>\n
8.8.2003 to 3.10.2003 suf;fe:1e”(1V–tfr0r.:t.1 baVC’1\u00a3;2ic:heVvtef xttvhiehh<\/p>\n
he took treatment at  ‘J-u’tteneihs_e111i. \ufb02ftvis ftirther net
\nin dispute that the Vpetitioberq\ufb02V1;:re::h;eAed’a xerox copy of
\nthe certificate\u00bb   the Medical
\nOfficer,   X\u20acI’OX Copy of the
\ncertificate  the Medical Officer,
\n tit is not in dispute that
\nwhen  unauthorisedly absent en<\/p>\n
11.’eeeasi\u20acj:2,s’\u00e9r’1 the past was visited with minor<\/p>\n
 Apimis}ime:.tts. H ttttt H<\/p>\n
t   defence of the petitioner that he was<\/p>\n
tre;\u00e9tte\u20acVi.AVb.y”.Va quack fer jaundice between 265.2003 arid<\/p>\n
   is not established. The further defence that<\/p>\n
“teas under treatment fer typhesiei fer the period from<\/p>\n
t V’ “”2\u00a7.6e2OQ3 ts ?.8,2GCi3 as certified by the deeter at PRC,<\/p>\n
Sha:”ev:a::12:heEagele in the >\u00ab:e:’e:”rier”tlet’vto  the said doctors who
\ntreated   secure the medical records<\/p>\n
maintainer}  tl-:et:_ai(“i”ltlPHC over the alleged treatment.<\/p>\n
 I1-iW_’l3;n\u00a7,z.e_eansidelreel–‘opinion, petitioner having failed to<\/p>\n
V  epeeial knowledge that was known to him in<\/p>\n
  alleged treatment by a quack and at the<\/p>\n
two ~~l?l’i’:11ary Health Centres, mere pmduetion of xerox<\/p>\n
 .ee’:pies of certi\ufb01cates by themselves and nothing more<\/p>\n
jeaerzot eesnstittzte subzstazetial legal evidenee. No<\/p>\n
\u20acX{?\u20ac\u00a7\u00a7,l\u20ac3l'”: titan he {alien 32:; the E”\u20ac;\u20aciS\u00a7(}\u00a7}$, fi:1di:3g;>;e and<\/p>\n
tee?\n<\/p>\n
‘E?\n<\/p>\n
conclusione arrived at by the Labour Court declining to
\naccept the copies of medical certificates as” <\/p>\n
evidenciairy value.\n<\/p>\n
9. In the circumstances;Qwtlxie ‘_rea.39ri:’:iyg~Vc’f’\u00ab’<\/p>\n
Labour court that failure :0 prririiice the_pre\u00bbs:%ri1a’;ticlriS.VV<\/p>\n
and bills in order to establ’ial1i.that”tliev had’<\/p>\n
taken treatment fo1\\r\\\\’J%\/un\u00abClice,e-\u00bb lj,%ff)I1Qid a’ricl”‘bacl<:ache
\ncannot be characterised Va::-"."1\u00a7c\u00a7rv.e:.rSe';'V~._\/Thai: contention<\/p>\n
must necessai'E'ly1'fail:;._<\/p>\n
  \u00a2.:3;U',l:1tE?171:tlvZ}_lCl fliarpetitioner had leave to his
\ncredilig and  applications with original
\nmedical l'i\u00abce1*tifl'caijes"  not supported by relevant<\/p>\n
Irgai\u00e9eriai _ar1<l1'*th.\u20ac.._Lab0ur court: rightly, declined 1:0<\/p>\n
' .VaceeptV4fhar blea.\n<\/p>\n
r.\u00a7;’l’.~.A\u00ab:”‘l”Ahe coriteritiicn that the Labour court did not<\/p>\n
 ..eis:_erc:se its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section ll~<\/p>\n
l  the Act, E am afraid is unacceptable. Section ll~A<\/p>\n
“lappliee Gray wheel the Labcur caar\u00e9 is eariaiiecl that the<\/p>\n
cr\ufb01er ef rlliarrriseal waa act. justifie\u00e9r ac  re iE3′{\u20acE”‘f\u20ac1″\u20ac<\/p>\n
lea<\/p>\n
IO  ,
\nwith the quantum of punishment imposed and<\/p>\n
lesser punishment in lieu of die:hissa\u00a7I,v~,2t1s””<\/p>\n
Circumstances may require.  -‘thee'”f\u00e9tetVs\u00bb.jj.af}d<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, the Lahe\ufb01f cettztjt-reeo1*eEe_d’*a<\/p>\n
specific finding that the”tptnj1ishfneVnt. _0i’..Veti\u00a7s1:1is5:aI iee’<\/p>\n
Commensurate with _ the g1f__e{:\\;\u00bbity’VV_._t)f Ihieconciiuct held
\nproved and therefore “Ve\u00e9:e,ft1L11j\u00a7g?’–.,in not exercising
\nextraordinary Ji:t:1fisdietit)n::uhd.e’r_Set:tit5:1” .1 LA of the Act.<\/p>\n
  Court in the ease of<\/p>\n
Divistftonalxx .NWKRTC, Bagalkot -V-
\nRagha’\\feri’drain_AV ‘–j.’i*s’I:;idL1′:1’ai?a Kattii, followed the<\/p>\n
observatioh  the Siu\ufb01reme Court in the caee of M\/s<\/p>\n
  Cempai1jVLtmited —v- Their Workmen and<\/p>\n
   \u00bbv44Vtm.>:1″\u00a7};eing that unauthorised absence is grave<\/p>\n
nit_s\u00a7e0ndi1e:t_.’#and grave Violation of discipline, greatly<\/p>\n
 je0pa;fe1i:3e the functioning of the estabiiehmentt more<\/p>\n
 gtipijziopriatety all employees of a Road Trahspert<\/p>\n
\u00a7:OI’}3Q1’\u20ac:\u00a7iO\ufb02% 1’\u20ac{:’I\u20actiI1i\u00a71g absent. having serious<\/p>\n
t m: 2e<:e: iii\ufb01xi\u00e9 43%:\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
repercussions on functioning of the Corpo_}\u00e9itio;3._ __”a–Lei1__d _<\/p>\n
hindering of service to public for which t’hev’Corporaiions”‘<\/p>\n
have been brought into exie\u00e9jengre ..-‘unde’:.* “‘:,heIj”e~–Re:a_d<\/p>\n
‘1’ ranspori Corporations Ari: ‘L95    vigeaiimexiii 1<\/p>\n
of such dereliction of   eiinount of
\nseriousness.   Division Bench
\nfurther followed the Apex Court in
\nthi’? 93353   “:~KE::t.f’Qactions Ltd. –~v-
\nA.UnnikfeiehT;ia:I.’iV.’:\u00e92n(j’–{‘\u00a7fheif3 ‘eie’pfecati11g the judicial
\ntendeneiee:i;)_   reliefs by mere basing
\non  generosity and private<\/p>\n
benevolence.\n<\/p>\n
  In  ‘ihi”Transport Corporation -\u00abV-= Sardar<\/p>\n
V  Court having regard to the abeenee<\/p>\n
iij\u00a2’::\u00bb:  observed that the Conduct of remaining<\/p>\n
absent’\u00ab:_Wit.houi. obtaining leave in advance is nothing<\/p>\n
AAVbiit_ir1;esponsib1e in extreme and can hardly be justified.<\/p>\n
in addition it was observed that ii is the burden of the<\/p>\n
i 3 .x’2iE\u00a5i 3%; so 229 \u00a7;,?%\u00e9\u00a7:.K<\/p>\n
 mac: E: ii}
\n‘ Aiii zsie\u00e9 Si? am:\n<\/p>\n
1?\n<\/p>\n
employee who eiaims that therie”‘x\u00bbi*as rio ggiegi\u00e9igeriee er ‘<\/p>\n
iaek of interest to establish it it ;3V1V>2;{C”iY1~g <\/p>\n
material.\n<\/p>\n
14. In the faeti;:5afi–  in the
\nabsence of relevant  the defence
\nof the petitj.ei’ier_~.of   treatment, it
\ncannot   V petitioner exhibited
\n in discharging duties.\n<\/p>\n
Havirig reigarri: iaid down by the Apex
\nCourt  Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
irij’~the_x’d.eeisibi1S,.__.I10tiee<:1 supra, the award impugned<\/p>\n
' tedeews note Cali for interference in exercise of extraordinary<\/p>\n
  under Article 227 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
 i
\n. 'Nrit petition devoid ef merit is rejected.<\/p>\n
3&3!\/ii<\/p>\n
 \u00a7 i ieeer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy mrs sermon COMING ON FOR 1>RL.H.sAR::~\u00ab:, :’-\u00abem-_’e* GROUP. THIS BAY. THE cows’? MA{)E’1’HE Fo1,1,0$as’\u00a3:~2ad ‘Transport Corporation remained absent fretrpduty \u00a7;V.e.f. ‘, 20.5.2003 to 31.10.2003 {\u00a3%i:\u00a7: o1;: pV1′;i01{_VVApver1;’I:1\u00a7issi0n er sanction of ieave, evtkdivsciplinary proceeding by […]<\/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-234950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - 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\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T13:02:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\\\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T13:02:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1702,\"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\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\\\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T13:02:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\\\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - 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\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-21T13:02:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T13:02:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011"},"wordCount":1702,"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\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011","name":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T13:02:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-k-j-nagaraju-so-javarappa-vs-the-divisional-controller-on-31-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri. K J Nagaraju S\/O Javarappa vs The Divisional Controller on 31 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/234950","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=234950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}