IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1869/2019 (MV) BETWEEN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER RAJAJINAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX BENGALURU (WEST) …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) AND 1 . MR A SUPREETH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O MR R ANANTHA KRISHNA R/AT NO.418/13, 5TH CROSS 7TH MAIN, HAMPI NAGAR BENGALURU-560040 2 . THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR SERVICE HUB KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SANJANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M V SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
V/O DATED 23.10.2019, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OBSERVATION/DIRECTION TO INITIATE ENQUIRY AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS DIRECTED IN PARA NO.13 OF THE ORDER DATED 14/09/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.12578/2018 (MV).
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT In view of the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay of 222 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A.No.1/2019 is accordingly allowed.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Considering the nature of the limited challenge in this appeal, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with and the appeal is forthwith taken up for final disposal.
3. The appellant is the Regional Transport Officer. The appellant is aggrieved by the following direction issued in the impugned order:
“Therefore this court would direct the Secretary, Transport Department to find out the person who was in charge of that office at the relevant point of time and initiate proceedings against him in not being diligent in managing his office properly and allow the application filed for simple task of transfer of ownership, being kept pending for more than six months, and conduct an enquiry, if necessary, by keeping him under suspension, thereafter pass an order imposing suitable punishment.”
4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the officer in respect of whom the direction was given to pass an order of suspension was not a party in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and therefore, without giving an opportunity of being heard to him, the direction to initiate an enquiry and to keep the Regional Transport Officer under suspension could not have been passed. He submitted that considering the prayer made in the writ petition, such a direction was uncalled for as essentially, the prayer made in the petition filed by the first respondent was for a writ of mandamus directing amendment of the Registration Certificate of a vehicle showing him as the owner of the vehicle. The other prayer is against the second respondent.
5. We have considered the submissions. Firstly, we are of the view that the order passed directing initiation of an enquiry was beyond the scope of the prayers made in the writ petition. Secondly, the officer against whom the enquiry was ordered and a direction was given to place him under suspension was not a party to the writ petition. In fact, this aspect was pointed out to the learned Single Judge which is recorded in paragraph 13 of the impugned order.
6. Hence, a drastic order directing initiation of an enquiry against the officer holding the post of Regional Transport Officer, Rajajinagar Shopping Complex and for placing him under suspension has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person affected thereby. Therefore, only that part of the direction in the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The following direction contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned order is quashed and set aside;
“Therefore this court would direct the Secretary, Transport Department to find out the person who was in charge of that office at the relevant point of time and initiate proceedings against him in not being diligent in managing his office properly and allow the application filed for simple task of transfer of ownership, being kept pending for more than six months, and conduct an enquiry, if necessary, by keeping him under suspension, thereafter pass an order imposing suitable punishment.”
(ii) We make it clear that the rest of the order is not disturbed and we have made no adjudication on merits of that part of the order;
(iii) The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv