IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.16660/2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN AUMA INDIA PVT LTD NO.38-A & 39-B, 2ND PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE - 560058 REPRESENTED BY M.S.VINAY HEAD-HUMAN RESOURCES ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ADBHUTH FOR SRI DIWAKAR.K, ADVOCATES) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001 2. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE- 560001 3. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 4. SECRETARY KARNATAKA & CULTURAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 5. CHAIRMAN KANNADA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 205, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001 6. AUMA INDIA EMPLOYEES ASOCIATION(REGD.) REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY D.NO.24, MADHUVANTHI 1ST FLOOR 1ST ‘A’ CROSS, CHIKKABOMMASANDRA NEW TOWN YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 560 065 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESTRAIN THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO ACT IN CONTRARY TO THE DIFFERENT NOTIFICATION AND PROCEEDINGS IN IMPLEMENTING KANNADA AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AUTHORITY HAS NOT STATUTORY SANCTION TO DETAIL THE SERVICE OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT LIKE LABOUR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, KANNADA AND CULTURAL DEPARTMENTS AND ETC..
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of prohibition restraining the fifth respondent to act contrary to the different notifications and proceedings in implementing Kannada as official language, as the respondent No.5 has no statutory sanction to detail the service of Government Department like Labour, Industries and Commerce, Kannada and Cultural Departments and to direct the respondent not to act beyond the scope of the objects of notification and quash the communication of the fifth respondent dated 17.03.2015.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacture of electric actuators and gear boxes. The Company is a member of Auma Group, head quartered in Germany, operating in Bengaluru, since 1986. Auma India supplies over 50% of India’s requirement of the products for process industries. Auma products are used by the public sectors like NPCL, BWSSB, BHEL, IOCL, BPCL etc. The respondent No.5/Kannada Development Authority, is an authority constituted under the Government Notification with its earlier name as ‘Kavalu Samithi’ (Monitoring Committee of the Kannada Implementation) and for implementation of Dr.Sarojini Mahishi report for reservation of jobs for Kannadigas in Central Public Sector undertakings existing in Karnataka.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that Kannada Development Authority is constituted for effective implementation of ‘Kannada’ as official language and the Authority has no power to interfere with the administration of any private organizations as per the Government Notification dated 06.07.1992 vide Annexure-A3. When things stood thus, on 17.03.2015, the fifth respondent issued notice to the petitioner stating that President of the fifth respondent is visiting the petitioner’s premises on 24.04.2015 at 11.30 am to inspect about the compulsory implementation of tri- linguistic language formula and implementation of Dr. Sarojini Mahishi Report regarding providing employment to the local people and to inspect the job provision made in the Central Public Undertakings as well as Centrally Owned Organizations, confusingly classifying the petitioner organization as a public sector, knowing that it is a private limited company. Aggrieved by the said notice, petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. This Court, by the Order dated 22.04.2015, directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4, issued emergent notice to respondent No.5 and granted interim stay of Annexure-B for a period of three months from the date of the said Order. Subsequently, stay is not extended.
5. Sri M.S.Shyam Sundar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent filed Memo dated 19.08.2019 before this Court stating that the Chairman who issued the impugned notice demitted the office on 24.08.2016 and till dated, no further visits to the petitioner Company had been planned by the succeeding Chairman. Due to afflux of time and considering that the interim order of stay of three months also lapsed in 2015 itself, the, writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the fifth respondent to proceed in accordance with law. The memo is placed on record.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Adbuth for Sri Diwakar.K, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice issued by the fifth respondent dated 17.03.2015 fixing the date of inspection of the petitioner premises as 24.04.2015 at 11.30 am is without authority of law and is liable to be quashed. The fifth respondent is only an authority empowered for compulsory implementation of tri-linguistic language formula and implementation of Dr. Sarojini Mahishi Report regarding providing employment to the local people and to inspect the job provision made in the Central Public Undertakings and Centrally Owned Organizations. The petitioner is a private limited company. The fifth respondent has no authority to issue the impugned notice to the petitioner and to inspect the petitioner’s premises. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, Ms.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned action of the Kannada Development Authority and contended that it is an authority constituted by the State Government for implementation of Kannada language as well as Dr.Sarojini Mahishi Report. Mere issuing of the impugned notice will not take away the right of the petitioner. The writ petition is premature. It is for the petitioner to file objections, if any, to the impugned notice and therefore, the writ is not maintainable and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a careful perusal of the impugned notice depicts that it is only a notice for inspection issued by the then Chairman of the fifth respondent to inspect about the compulsory implementation of tri-linguistic language formula and implementation of Dr. Sarojini Mahishi Report regarding providing employment to the local people and to inspect the job provision made. It is for the petitioner to send reply to the impugned notice. The very writ petition filed challenging the impugned notice is not maintainable.
10. Admittedly, the impugned notice was stayed by this Court only for a period of three months w.e.f.
22.04.2015. The date fixed for inspection i.e., 24.04.2015 is also spent itself. Therefore, it is for the fifth respondent to take action in accordance with law. As on today, petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition against the impugned notice. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off. However, it is open for the fifth respondent to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm