IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.1609 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.A.S.NALINI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS D/O SRI A.T.S.IYENGAR 2. DR. A. S. RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O SRI A.T.S.IYENGAR 3. DR. PADMINI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O DR.KRISHNAPRASAD ALL OF THEM RESIDING AT #941, "SHANTHIVILAS", 2ND MAIN, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE 4. SRI.H.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O. SRI. HONNAPPA #944, CH3, "ADITHYA"
2ND MAIN, LAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE 5. SMT. ANITHA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O. W.T. AMAR 949/B, 2ND MAIN LAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE-570 004 6. MS. AISHWARYA RAO AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O. W. T. AMAR 949/B, 2ND MAIN LAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE - 570 004 (BY SHRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE 2. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSORE CITY, MYSORE 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE MYSORE 5. SRI M. B. MADHUSUDAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 940/1, 2ND MAIN LAKSHMIPUARAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE ... APPELLANTS 6. THE SECRETARY LAKSHMIPURAM SPORTS CLUB #940, 2ND MAIN, LAKSHMIPUARAM CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE ... RESPONDENTS (SHRI P.B. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/04/2019 IN W.P.NOS.42423/2017 AND 17205-17210/2017 (GM-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The challenge is to the order impugned dated 1st April 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order read thus:
“3. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they be granted with liberty to make a fresh representation before the competent authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that if such a representation is made by the petitioners the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
4. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case of a representation is made to the competent authority, the same shall be decided by the competent authority by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”
(underline added) 3. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants are two fold. His first submission is that though it is recorded in paragraph 3 of the order that the counsel for the appellants submitted that they may be granted liberty to make a fresh representation, such a prayer was never made by the learned counsel before the learned Single Judge. His second submission is that the writ petitions should have been considered on merits.
4. The impugned order specifically records that it was the learned counsel for the petitioners who submitted that liberty may be granted to make a representation and in terms of the said request, by granting liberty to make a representation, the writ petitions have been disposed of.
5. If according to the case of the appellants, such a submission which is recorded in paragraph 3 was never made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the only remedy is to take out appropriate application before the learned Single Judge. As far as the appeal Court is concerned, it will have to proceed on the footing that what is recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order is factually correct. If it is not correct, only the learned Single Judge can clarify this.
6. Therefore, the efficacious remedy for the appellants is to apply to the learned Single Judge by filing an appropriate application. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
7. However, it will be open for the appellants to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB