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.2175 OF 2017 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.2298 OF 2017 (S-DIS) BETWEEN:
1. J.M.J. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY NO.89/90, SOLDEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 090, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ACHARYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NO.89/90, SOLDEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 090.
3. THE PRINCIPAL ACHARYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NO.89/90, SOLDEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 090. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI G.N. VENKATESH SON OF SRI G.M. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT, ACHARYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, J.M.J. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NO.89/90, SOLDEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, HESARAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 090, RESIDING AT NO.77, ASHIRWAD NILAYA, VIDYANAGAR, TELECOM LAYOUT, BETTAHALASUR, CHIKKAJALA BENGALURU-560 057. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK K. L., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.45024 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.46303 OF 2016 DATED 09/03/2017.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 9-3-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45024 of 2016 vacating the interim order granted earlier, the petitioners have filed these appeals.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself in recalling the interim order. Hence, interference is called for. The counsel for the respondent - caveator is absent.
3. On hearing learned counsel, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while considering I.A.No.1 of 2016 for vacating the interim order held as follows:-
“No statement was made before this Court stating that the respondent had already been reinstated into service. The reliance placed on the letter today is dated 22.8.2016 whereas the interim order passed by this court is dated 30.8.2016. It is apparent that the petitioners are trying to hood-wink this court by placing on record an ante dated correspondence. No categorical statement is made before this Court that the petitioners have complied with the condition imposed by this Court while granting interim order. Hence the interim relief being an equitable measure, the parties are expected to strictly adhere to the same but it does not appear that they have taken recourse to steps to have the order of this Court implemented.
Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner is not entitled for further continuation of the interim relief granted by this Court on 30.8.2016 and it requires to be recalled.”
Therefore, we are of the view that in view of the facts and circumstances involved, the learned Single Judge has formed an opinion based on material as well as the conditional order granted earlier that the petitioners were trying to hoodwink by placing on record ante dated correspondence. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing I.A.No.1 of 2016. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-