IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS W.P Nos.25710 - 25712/2019 (S – KSAT) Between:
1. Aravinda Kumar N Aged about 41 years s/o Narasimha Moorthy Working as Deputy Range Forest Officer –cum- Surveyor Tarikere Range Tarikere Taluk – 577 228.
2. Jayarama J L Aged about 44 years s/o late Lingarajappa Working as Deputy Range Forest Officer –cum- Surveyor Social Forest Range Shimoga Taluk – 577 208.
3. Srinivasa K Aged about 32 years s/o Krishnappa Working as Deputy Range Forest Officer –cum- Surveyor Agumbe Range Thirthahalli Taluk – 577 424. .. Petitioners (By Sri V Lakshminarayana, Sr.Counsel for Miss Anusha L, Advocate) And :
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Forest Department, M S Building Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavana Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003.
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest Shivamogga Circle, Shivamogga – 560 003.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest Bhadravathi Division Bhadravathi – 577 301.
5. The Deputy Conservator of Forest Social Forest Division Shivamogga – 577 202. ..Respondents (By Miss N Anitha, HCGP) These WPs are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure-B) of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application Nos.3348 to 3350/2019 and 3404 to 3406/2019 and modify the said order by allowing the interim order prayed by the petitioner in the Application Nos.3348 to 3350/2019 and 3404 to 3406/2019 (Annexure-A collectively) on the file of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
These WPs coming on for preliminary hearing this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER The reversion order passed against the petitioners has been challenged before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. After hearing the applicants, notice was ordered. With regard to interim order, it has been stated that unless and until reply is filed, interim order cannot be passed. Against the said order, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that power is vested with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to grant exparte interim order and also to reject the same. The Tribunal should have considered the reversion order and passed an exparte order. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Tribunal has heard the applicants and the respondents and observed that the interim order would be granted after filing reply. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to allow the writ petitions but to dismiss the writ petitions.
4. We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondents.
5. The Tribunal under Section 15 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts (except the Supreme Court). It applies even for not granting or rejecting the interim prayer. There shall be duty on the Tribunal to consider or reject exparte interim order where there is imminent threat of vested right. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the reversion order passed is arbitrary. Without expressing any opinion on merit, when the power is vested with the Tribunal to grant or reject an exparte interim order, the same is not exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to grant interim order on technical grounds. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are working as Deputy Range Forest Officers –cum- Surveyors. Nobody has been placed in their place after the order of reversion. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order at the earliest. Since there is threat of reversion, status-quo is granted for a period of two weeks. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Tribunal by making necessary interlocutory application.
In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE Bkm