IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 3662 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
ANIL.M S/O LATE MUKUNDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS REVENUE OFFICER (NORTH DIVISION) BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY R.T.NAGAR, BDA COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 032.
(BY SHRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009.
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADLL) YELAHANKA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 064.
... APPELLANT 5. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE NEAR SRI. VINAYAKA SCHOOL YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 092.
6. SRI.K.H. RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HUTCHAPPA @ CHIKKAHUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
7. K.R.RAJU S/O K.H.RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
8. K.R.LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SRI. K.H.RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
9. K.R.JAYARAM S/O K.H.RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT NO.1663, “SHREE MARUTI FARM”, NEAR IMPACT COLLEGE, AMCO LAYOUT KODIGEHALLI, SHANKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 092.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI.P.B. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4 SHRI. N.SOMEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 AND R-7 TO R-9) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P. No. 616/2018(KLR-RES) DATED: 13.02.2019 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth to ninth respondents and the learned AGA for the first to fourth respondents. Even in the writ petition, in which the impugned order is passed, notice was not issued to the fifth respondent.
2. A direction has been issued by the impugned order to place the appellant, who is a Tahasildar, under suspension and to hold an enquiry against him. The challenge is also to the adverse findings recorded against the appellant. As the appellant who is not a party to the writ petition is directly affected by the impugned order, I.A.1/2019 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to prosecute the appeal.
3. As the appellant was not a party to the writ petition when the impugned order was passed, for the reasons which are set out in the Affidavit in support of the application, the delay of 183 days deserves to be condoned as sufficient cause is made out. Accordingly, I.A.3/2019 is allowed and delay is condoned.
4. We have immediately taken up the appeal for final disposal.
5. The sixth to ninth respondents are the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. A prayer was made in the petition filed by them to quash the order dated 06th December 2017 and for a further direction to effect the mutation as per the order dated 24th October 2017.
6. It appears that during the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge directed the present appellant who was holding the post of Tahsildar, Bangalore North, to personally remain present in the Court. In paragraph-14, the learned Single Judge has observed that the order impugned has been passed by an irresponsible and negligent revenue officer. There is a finding recorded against the appellant about the manipulation of records. There is also an adverse finding recorded in paragraph-16 against him and ultimately, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the appellant under suspension and to hold an enquiry against him.
7. The appellant was not a party to the proceedings of the writ petition. No opportunity was available to the appellant to deal with the allegations made against him personally as he had no opportunity to contest the petition by filing objections. Therefore, on this ground alone, the directions issued to the Principal Revenue Secretary to keep the appellant under suspension and to hold an enquiry as well as the adverse findings recorded against the appellant will have to be set aside.
8. We make it clear that notwithstanding the setting aside of the relevant part of the impugned order, if a case is made out, the State Government is always free to initiate appropriate proceedings against the appellant in accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
(i) The directions contained in the impugned order for placing the appellant under suspension and holding an enquiry against him is hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The adverse observations made against the appellant in the impugned order stand deleted;
(iii) We make it clear that this order will not prevent the State Government from initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law against the appellant;
(iv) We clarify that we have not dealt with the merits of the controversy raised by the contesting rival parties to the petition and all those issues are kept open. The findings on merits are not disturbed;
(v) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
(vi) Pending application do not survive and the same is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Srl.