IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.2305-2318/2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. A. AMRUTH RAJ S/O LATE T. ANANDH RAJ, AGE 44 YEARS, ASSESSOR, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) HEBBAL JC NAGAR BENGALURU - 32.
2. K.G. RAVI S/O LATE K M GOPAL AGE 33 YEARS, ASSESSOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) MARUTHISEVANAGAR BBMP BENGALURU.
3. S G SURESH S/O LATE GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) ARJUNAPURA B.B.M.P BENGALURU.
4. D RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE C DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) GIRINAGAR B.B.M.P.
BENGALURU.
5. K MANJUGOWDA S/O K. KEMPEGOWDA AGE 42 YEARS, WORK INSPECTOR ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KENGERI SUB-DIVISION B.B.M.P. BENGALURU.
6. D. GANGADHAR S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) SUB DIVISION, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU 7. NINGARAJU S/O NINGEGOWDA AGE 43 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) NAGAPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURA BENGALURU 8. RAMACHANDRA D S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGE 49 YEARS, TAX INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) MARKET, B.B.M.P., BENGALURU 9. M GURU S/O LATE S.M.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) BANASHANKARI CIRCLE, BENGALURU 10. VISHWANATH K S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, REVENUE INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) HEBBAL SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU.
11. RAKESH D S/O LATE DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2ND DIVISION CLERK ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR BENGALURU.
12. RENUKAMBA R. RAJAMMA D/O RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SENIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR MEDICLE OFFICER OF HEALTH SHIVAJI NAGAR DIVISION BENGALURU.
13. VIBHA J W/O MAHESH AGED 29 YEARS, TAX INSPECTOR ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU.
14. H V ASHWATH S/O VENKATESHAWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION BENGALURU.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI DEVI PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR CFC BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP) HUTSON CIRCLE, NR SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. BABU S/O GURAIAH, AGE 53 YEARS, NO.4, 11TH CROSS, WILLIAMS TOWN, BENSON TOWN POST BENGALURU - 560 046.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPECIAL COUNSEL) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Devi Prasad Shetty for the petitioners and Mr. C. Jagadish, Special Counsel for respondent No.1.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.3.
3. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
4. In these petitions, petitioners inter alia seek writ of certiorari for quashing of notice issued by respondent No.1, Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are employees of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) and are working in respective divisions. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has filed a false and frivolous complaint before respondent No.1 against the petitioners. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has criminal antecedents and four criminal cases are pending against him. It is submitted that some of the petitioners are lady employees and they are being unnecessarily harassed and victimized by respondent No.3.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 who has appeared on advance notice submits that in case petitioners file reply to the aforesaid notice, the Commission shall take into account the replies which may be filed by the petitioners and shall decide the issue involved in the complaint, in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners file replies to the complaint filed by respondent No.3, the Commission before proceeding further with the matter shall consider the replies filed by the petitioners and shall afford them an opportunity of hearing, as well as to the respondent No.3, and decide the issue with regard to maintainability of the complaint, before proceeding further with the matter, in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD