IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.300 OF 2019 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
SRI M. V. SRINIVASA GOWDA SON OF LATE SRI G. VENKATARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MANDIKAL VILLAGE, KOLADEVI POST, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI PAPI REDDY G., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (POLITICAL PENSIONS), VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE UPA-LOKAYUKTHA MULTISTOREYED BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101.
5. THE TAHSILDAR MULBAGAL TALUK, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
6. SRI NAGARAJ SON OF SRI NARAYANA GOWDA, MAJOR BY AGE, RESIDENT OF MANDIKAL VILLAGE, KOLADEVI POST MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS PER ANNEXURE-E BASED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED 01.08.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE- E1 AND THE ACTION TAKEN THEREON IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASH THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED 14.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO R-5, TAHSILDAR, MULBAGAL TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be a Freedom Fighter, who participated in ‘Mysuru Palace Chalo Movement’ in the year 1947. Thereafter, he has been granted ‘Freedom Fighter Honorarium’ since the year 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.6 made a false complaint to the Upa-Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner is not a Freedom Fighter. That he is obtaining the ‘Freedom Fighter Honorarium’ based on fabricated documents.
2. An enquiry was initiated and an explanation was sought for from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, it is his case that the impugned communication vide Annexure-H, dated 14.11.2018, has been addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar for recovery of the pension paid to the petitioner since 1990 and for initiation of criminal prosecution. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the material placed against the petitioner requires to be accepted. That he is a ‘Freedom Fighter’ and is therefore receiving the honorarium. It is only due to ill- will that the sixth respondent has initiated these proceedings.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. What is sought to be challenged herein is a communication by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H. It is a mere inter-departmental communication between one office and another. It is for the Tahsildar to act and thereafter to proceed in the manner known to law. The same in our considered view does not constitute any ground to challenge the said communication. Therefore, we find that the petition is pre- mature and hence it is rejected on this ground. Liberty is always reserved to the petitioner to challenge any proceedings if any initiated against him.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ