IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1492 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009.
NOW REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR) M. RAMAKRISHNA.
2. THE DIRECTOR (HRD) AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009.
NOW REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR) M. RAMAKRISHNA.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI:HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.K.M.KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RETIRED STORE KEEPER RESIDING AT NO.454-15 2ND MAIN ROAD BHAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560 019.
2. SRI G.RAGHAVENDRA RAO RETIRED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ENQUIRY OFFICER NO.18, 2ND MAIN ROAD JUDICIAL OFFICER LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR BENGALURU-560 094.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO VACATE THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY GRANTED IN WRIT PETITION NO.21175 OF 2017 WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA 1 OF 2018 IN THE ABOVE CASE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY HIS ORDER DATED 13.03.2018.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.21175 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the application filed by the appellants- respondents to vacate the interim order granted, respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants contend that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the respondents could not initiate enquiry under the old Regulations, therefore, the application for vacating the interim order was wrongly rejected. The appellants’ Counsel by placing reliance on the application seeking vacating of the interim order contends that, the action purported to have been taken under the old regulations is saved under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, this aspect requires to be considered by the learned Single Judge. In the absence of considering the saving clause, the impugned order therein becomes unsustainable.
3. The same is disputed to by the respondents’ Counsel.
4. On hearing learned Counsels, we are of the view that appropriate relief is called for. Section 185(2) of the Act would indicate that all actions that have already taken place under the repealed law shall be deemed to have been done under the corresponding provision of the present Act. Therefore, in terms of the saving clause, the learned Single Judge should have considered the application for vacating the stay as to whether the proceedings are valid or not. Therefore, we find it is an error committed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 13.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.21175 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to reconsider the application for vacating the stay filed by the appellants herein, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-