IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.12248/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SMT. M. ROOPA W/O. SRI UMESH B.J. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT BRIGADE RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.105, GOKULAM ROAD, MYSURU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC ‘A’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.
3. SMT. ROOPASHREE .K MAJOR, WORKING AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (LEGAL), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BENGALURU – 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3; SRI I. TARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.125/2019, DATED 15.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-A) IN SO FAR AS NOT ALLOWING THE APPLICATION NO.125/2019 QUASHING THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 AND WITH REGARD TO ORDER OF DISPOSAL DIRECTING THE APPLICANT THEREIN TO HAND OVER THE CHARGE ON 31ST OF MAY 2019 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for caveator – respondent No.3 and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 on advance notice.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he had never pleaded before the Tribunal to the effect that the “applicant be continued till she completes her tenure at Mysore or she may be continued till end of May 2019”. He further submitted that the order of transfer was challenged before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal ought to have considered the legality and correctness of the said order and not passed the impugned order as it could not have been on the basis of a concession made by petitioner’s counsel, who appeared before the Tribunal. Having regard to the tenor of submissions made in the writ petition, we are of the view that the petitioner ought to explore the possibility of filing a review petition before the Tribunal and making his submission before the Tribunal in light of what has been contended above.
3. In the circumstances, writ petition is not entertained at this stage, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition, if so advised.
4. It is needless to observe that if a review petition is filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs Sd/- JUDGE