IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.45455 OF 2013 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
SRI S. PUTTASHAMU S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA DIKSHITH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT MEDITHAMBIHALLI VILLAGE HUTHUR HOBLI AND POST KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZARAI), M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS BANGALORE DISTRICT. BANGALORE.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563 101.
5. THE THAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, H.C.G.P. FOR R1-R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 01.01.2013 ADDRESSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THIRD RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 01.01.2013 addressed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments to the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, by which it is directed that, since the petitioner has obtained Tastik Allowance by creating forged documents and has misappropriated the funds, a criminal action should be initiated against the petitioner and the amount which is paid to the petitioner by way of Tastik Allowance shall be recovered from him.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the report prepared by the Revenue Officer and neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5 was unable to point out from the records that the aforesaid order was neither preceded by any notice nor any enquiry.
6. Taking into account the fact that the impugned order directing recovery of the amount has been passed against the petitioner without issuing any notice or without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.01.2013 is quashed. However, the respondents are granted the liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if so advised in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST