IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.36402 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI BALAKRISHNANANDA SAMSTHANAM MATH GAJARANYA KSHETHRA TALAKADU T NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571125, BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE PRESIDENT SRI U V SRINIVASA MURTHY. … PETITIONER (By Mr. S S NAGANANDA SR. ADV. A/W Mr. ADBHUTH ADV. FOR Mr. DIWAKARA K, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZARAI) M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU – 570001.
5. SRI. B.S. PRABHAKAR AMENDED AS PER S/O LATE B.S. SATHYANARAYANA ORDER DTD:31.01.2017 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. NO.40, SRI LAKSHMI NIVISA 1ST CROSS KEMPANNA LAYOUT, GOWDANA PALYA UTTARHALLI, BENGALURU-56061. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y D HARSHA AGA FOR R1 TO R4 Mr. RAGHAVAN M, ADV., FOR R5) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notification issued by the R-3 under secretary revenue department (Muzarai) dtd:18.6.2016 at Annexure-B appointing R-4 Assistant Commissioner, Mysore sub division as administrator of the petitioner math and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.S.S.Nagananda, learned Senior counsel along with Sri.Adbhuth for Sri.Diwakara, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Sri.Raghavan M., learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
Page No.2 retyped and replaced vide Chambers Order dated 07-03-2019 3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of notification dated 18.06.2016 by which respondent No.4 namely the Assistant Commissioner has been appointed as Administrator by the petitioner.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction as the same has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. He further submits that the impugned order is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non- application of mind.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents could not dispute the submission made by the Senior counsel for the petitioner that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of paragraph 6 of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner has taken a specific ground that neither any notice nor any intimation was issued to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order and the order has been passed unilaterally in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid averment of fact has not been denied by respondent No.4 in their objections. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘SMT.NASEEM BANO Vs. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS’ 1993 SUPP (4) SCC 46, it is well settled in law that if an averment of fact made in the writ petition is not denied by controverting the same, the same is taken to be accepted.
8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is accordingly quashed. The competent authority is directed to issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.5 and thereafter, to conduct an enquiry and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Needless to state that the competent authority shall conclude the proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV