IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.56604 OF 2016 (GM-CC) BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERAMALLAIAH S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, GOVENAHALLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123, R/AT SRINAGAR 2ND MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, DEVARAYAPATNA POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
(By Mr. K.N. NITISH, ADV. FOR Mr. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. JOINT DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.
4. DISTRICT LEVEL SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBE CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, TUMKUR DISTRICT, BY ITS CHAIRMAN-
… PETITIONER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.
(By Mr. C. JAGADEESH, SPECIAL COUNSEL) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:20.7.2016 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-K. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DTD:20.7.2016 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-K & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.N.Nitish for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.Jagadeesh, learned Special counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by respondent No.4.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a similar contention that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. Learned Special Government Advocate could not point out from the record that any opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. Taking into account the fact that the impugned order dated 20.07.2016 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that respondent No.4 shall shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law if so advised.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS