IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.4929 OF 2015 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI MARAPPA TALUR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF MARAPPA, CONDUCTOR TOKEN NO.5975, DEPOT NO.4, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.
(BY SRI T. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
... APPELLANT 1. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.13626 OF 2014 DATED 26.03.2015.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.03.2015, passed in Writ Petition No.13626 of 2014, the petitioner therein has filed the present appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was no delay in filing the writ petition. That the relief that has been claimed by the appellant is of a much earlier date. That non-consideration of his representation will affect his legal right.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. She places reliance on the material produced herein to indicate that the request of the appellant has since been considered and rejected. Therefore, even on merits, nothing further remains for consideration.
4. However on hearing learned counsels, we find it just and appropriate that the respondents – Corporation reconsiders the case of the appellant purely in accordance with the facts and law, irrespective of the fact that there was an earlier representation made by the appellant to the respondents. It is only necessary that the respondent reconsiders the matter afresh, notwithstanding the earlier communication made by it.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.03.2015, passed in Writ Petition No.13626 of 2014 is set-aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2013, vide Annexure-X to the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
ct:sm