IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.4026 OF 2019 (S - RES) BETWEEN:
H. RAJANNA SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS BILL COLLECTOR, PATTANA PANCHAYITHI KARYALAYA, HULIYARU – 572 218 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF GRAMA PATTANA PANCHAYITHI, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYITHI, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTANA PANCHAYATH OFFICE HULIYAR, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 218.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDET NOs.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.11.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.50757 OF 2019 (S-RES) CONSEQUENTLY ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2019, passed in writ petition No.50757 of 2019, by the learned Single Judge, in holding that there is no case made out for grant of interim relief, the writ petitioner therein is in appeal.
2. Appellant’s counsel contends that he has a very good case on merits and therefore, an interim relief requires to be granted.
3. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
4. The plea of the petitioner in the writ petition was for upgradation wherein, certain others were made as permanent employees and not the petitioner. On considering the material on record and contentions of the learned counsels, the learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that there is no ground to grant an interim relief.
5. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The contention urged by the appellant’s counsel needs to be considered at the stage of final hearing. However, the interim relief as sought for does not aid the appellant towards a final relief. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to grant interim relief. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj CT:MJ