IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.49020 OF 2018 [S-KSAT] BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, SIRSI TALUK OFFICE, SIRSI-581 401.
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
… PETITIONERS [BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE] AND:
SRI. D. VENKATESH, SON OF C.K. DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS SURVEYOR AT TALUK OFFICE, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SIRSI-581 401.
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENT [BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2817/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2018, in Application No.2817 of 2018, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, directing Respondent No.2 therein to consider the applicant’s representation to issue movement order, the petition is filed by the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. The same is disputed by the respondent.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any error in the direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the representation of the applicant for issuance of a movement order in pursuance to the transfer order dated 23.02.2018. It is his plea that he was transferred in view of the election to the Karnataka State Assembly. Even after the election to the Karnataka State Assembly was concluded, he was not relieved. Therefore, the Tribunal has directed the second respondent to consider the applicant’s representation. Since, the order passed by the Tribunal is only to consider the representation, it is only appropriate if the State considers the representation in the manner known to law. We do not find any other question that arises for consideration. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
4. However, the State is directed to consider the Order of the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today.
Pending IAs stand rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc