IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO. 2811 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
G.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE. BULLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL-562 106.
3. T.H. GANESHAIAH S/O LATE. HONNARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/O GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106 BENGALURU.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT #501, 7TH MAIN, KALIDASA ROAD VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE MYSORE-570 017.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA. FOR R1 & R2, SRI. C.K.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.07.2018 IN WP 29880 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.29880 of 2018, the appellant have filed this appeal.
2. It is pleaded that the appellant was not a party before the learned Single Judge. That the learned Single Judge has wrongly directed that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner be implemented. That the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is erroneous. That there are various material that indicate that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is erroneous on facts and law.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has merely directed implementation of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. The veracity of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was not a subject matter before the learned Single Judge. If at all the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, he is very well entitled to question the same in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. Unless and until the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner remains on record, the same is liable to be implemented. The learned Single Judge has exactly ordered the same. Therefore, we do not find any legal right of the appellant being infringed in the writ petition.
Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, it is futile to entertain the pending I.As. and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-