IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.35880 OF 2016 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN:
SRI. TIGYANAIK S/O OBANAIK AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS THE THEN ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYAT HIRIYUR PRESENTLY WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER PWD CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA – 577501. … PETITIONER (By Mr.R. NAGARAJ, ADV. (ABSENT)) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER-SECRETARY SERVICES – A RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001.
2. THE HON’BLE UPALOKAYUKTHA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGLAORE – 560001. … RESPONDENTS (By SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, ADV. FOR R1 MR. G. DEVARAJ ADV., FOR R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records leading to an issue relating to Notification Dtd. 7.05.2016 issued by the R-1 and after perusal question the same as the same is not maintainable.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Smt.H.C.Kavita, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) Call for the records leading to an issue relating to notification bearing No.GraAapa 35 In Q 2016, Bengaluru dated 7.5.2016 (Annexure-A) issued by the first respondent and after perusal quash the same as the same is arbitrary, illegal not maintainable.
(b) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that by the impugned order dated 07.05.2016, respondent No.2 has been appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. The writ petition is pending before this Court since 2016 in which no interim order has been passed. By now, the proceeding instituted against the petitioner might have been concluded. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to seek revival of the petition in case the enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner is still pending.
Sd/ JUDGE RV