IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH AND THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL WRIT PETITION NO.17285/2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SRI H.C.SOMANNA S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD & IWTD, NO.1 SUB-DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR RESIDING AT HONNURU POST YELLANDUR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 440 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI VARUN PATIL FOR MEDINI LAW, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER CNNL, SOUTH RANGE-MYSORE MYSORE- 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH NAIK.G, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A10 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED BY TE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2004/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging an interlocutory order dated 03.04.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in his application in A.No.2004 of 2017. The order reads as follows:
“Dr.KBJ (C) & VPB(AM) 3.4.2017 Heard Sri.Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant.
We see no good ground to grant the interim relief without reply from the respondents.
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents Nos.1 and 3.
Sri Mallikarjuna C.Basareddy is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.
Granted eight weeks time to file reply statement.”
2. We find no ground to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Tribunal for grant of the interim relief sought in his application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR