IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.971 OF 2016 (GM-PDS) BETWEEN:
SMT. B. KAMALAKHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WIFE OF MAHADEVAIAH, RESIDING AT SUTTUR VILLAGE, IRASAVADI POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441.
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313.
3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, CHAMARAJANAGARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313.
5. THE THASILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 313.
6. B. CHANNAKESHAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF LATE BASAVAIAH, RESIDING AT SUTTUR VILLAGE, IRASAVADI POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441.
7. GANESH C AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SON OF CHOWDAIAH, RESIDING AT SUTTUR VILLAGE, IRASAVADI POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 441.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI KESHAVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-6;
R-7 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.42829 OF 2015 DATED 01/02/2016.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.42829 of 2015, remanding the matter to the Revision Authority, respondent no.6 therein has filed the instant appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant pleads that the learned Single Judge committed an error in remanding the matter. On the contrary, the writ petition should have been dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents disputes the said contention.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in this writ appeal.
5. The learned Single Judge on considering the merits, was of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the first respondent – State of Karnataka, for consideration of the revision petition in accordance with law, after putting all the seven unsuccessful applicants on notice. Therefore, in view of the fact that contentions have been advanced and the matter is remanded to the Revision Authority, we find no infraction of any legal right of the appellant. The appellant too is entitled to participate in the proceedings.
6. Under these facts and circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The Revision Authority shall dispose off the petition as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-