IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT W.P.NO.27541 OF 2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN SRI ARYAPUTRA VIDYA SAMSTHE (R) KESARAMADU, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. C. K. PREMA, W/O MAGADI RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O KYATHASANDRA, TUMAKURU-572001.
(BY SRI S.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
... PETITIONER 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572001.
5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DTD 03.11.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.38/2013 ANNX-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner-Educational Trust is against the order dated 03.11.2017 at Annexure – D whereby, the it’s Revision Petition No.38/2013 filed under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 impugning the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2013, has been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution.
2. The learned Addl. Government Advocate Smt.Pramodhini Kishan on request, having accepted notice for the respondents opposed the Writ Petition stating that although ordinarily a Revision Petition cannot be dismissed for default, still the dismissal can be justified if the Revision Petitioner whose presence in the facts and circumstances of the case having been warranted, avoids to participate in the proceedings.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposing respondents; I have perused the Petition Papers.
4. Ordinarily, one of the differences between the Appeal and the Revision Petition is that an appeal may be dismissed for default whereas a statutory Revision cannot be, of course, subject to all just exceptions. The impugned order of dismissal of the Revision Petition does not reflect whether the personal participation of the Revision Petitioner was expected in the given circumstances of the case, to countenance the contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the case of the petitioner falls in the exception to the general rule that a Revision Petition cannot be dismissed for default.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 03.11.2017 at Annexure – D; Writ of Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent to hear and dispose off petitioner’s Revision Petition No.38/2013 on merits within an outer limit of three months, after notice to the petitioner.
No costs.
cbc Sd/- JUDGE