IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.2033 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES), BHARATH BHAVAN, NOS. 4 AND 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, P.B. NO.688, MUMBAI-400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES), LPG BOTTLING PLANT, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MANGALURU-575 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. ARCHANA NITHIN WIFE OF SRI NITHIN VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.127, ‘N’ BLOCK, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023.
…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.06.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ON WRIT PETITION NO.55439 OF 2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.55439 of 2013 in setting-aside the impugned communication and directing the respondents to consider the matter afresh, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous. That such a direction could not be issued.
3. The respondent is served and unrepresented.
4. On hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, the direction issued to the appellants herein was to consider all the aspects of the matter and reconsider the case of the writ petitioners and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law. Therefore, such a discretion is vested with the appellants in terms of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore it cannot be found fault with. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-