IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 15077 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.J.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O JANAIAH, FORMER ATTENDER, RESIDING AT K.P. DODDI VILALGE & POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMNAGAR DIST 562 159.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. S V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.6 B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/SECRETARY.
2. CHAIRMAN & APPELLATE AUTHORITY KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD, NO.6, B.T.M. LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 029.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B MADHUSUDHAN ADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 AT ANNEX-A OF R-1 AND PERUSE THE SAME; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Shorn of pleadings and plurality of prayers in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction issues to the second respondent to consider his statutory appeal, a copy whereof is at Annexure-J in a time bound manner.
2. In response to the above, the learned Panel Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that there would be no difficulty for consideration of petitioner’s appeal in a time bound manner if the petitioner cooperates by furnishing necessary information/documents; he also notifies to the Court that the labour dispute which the petitioner had raised in I.D.No.50/2016 before the Second additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, has been dismissed for non-prosecution; however the said dismissal being not on merits, does not come in the way of petitioner’s appeal being entertained by the second respondent.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing the first and second respondents to consider and dispose off petitioner’s subject appeal within a period of eight weeks, and to inform the petitioner of the result of such consideration forthwith.
If in terms of this direction, the consideration of petitioner’s appeal is delayed, the respondent shall be liable to pay to the petitioner a cost of Rs.500/- for every week of delay, and the said amount shall be recoverable from the erring officials, in accordance with costs.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs as of now.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv