IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3650 OF 2019 (LB - RES) BETWEEN:
JAI BHAVANI PARISARA RAKSHA SEVA SAMSTHE® REGD NO.BR.UD/SOR/185/2017-18, KALLYA VILLAGE AND POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI BRAMMA RISHI SRI UMAMAHESHWARA SWAMIJI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
(BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.
2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH KARKALA, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 101.
3. KALLYA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH KALLYA VILLAGE AND POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
RESPONDENT NO.1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2019 MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.19373 OF 2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND KINDLY GRANT RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19373 OF 2019.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.19373 of 2019 by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner therein has filed this appeal.
2. The plea of the petitioner was for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to implement the order dated 17.11.2018 passed in appeal No.8/2017-18 by respondent No.3 – Panchayath. The learned Single Judge while considering the petition came to a view that the impugned order sought to be enforced, itself is erroneous. That prima facie, the order passed by the appellate authority is the one without jurisdiction as no order as such could be passed enabling the petitioner to prefer the appeal. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner has not made out any case to demonstrate as to how he is aggrieved by the resolution.
3. On considering the contentions of the learned counsels, we do not find that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and requires interference. When the impugned order / resolution itself is without jurisdiction and when the appellate authority has passed the impugned order which is unenforceable, the question of interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge does not arise for consideration. Hence, we do not find any ground to entertain the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to avail such remedy as available in law.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj