Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Omar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 5 April, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2889
WP No. 200780 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.200780 OF 2019 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED OMAR,
S/O MOHAMMED ILYAS
AGE: 26 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE
R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN, MSK MILL'S AREA
KALBURAGI-585103.
2. MOHAMMED ILYAS S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGE ABOUT: 54 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE
R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN, MSK MILL'S AREA,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AMEETKUMAR DESHPANDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
Digitally signed SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
by RENUKA
Location: High AND:
Court Of
Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
KALABURAGI-585102
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2889
WP No. 200780 of 2019
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585102
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI-585102.
6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
JAGATH CIRCLE, KALABURAGI-585102
7. THE THASILDAR
KALABURAGI-585102.
8. KARNATAKA STATE HORTICULTURE
MISSION AGENCY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR,
MISSION DIRECTORATE OFFICE,
LAL BAGH, BENGALURU-1
9. THE COMMISSIONER
CITY CORPORATION,
KALABURAGI-585102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R8;
SRI BASAVAKIRAN G.S. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI D.P AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT
APPROPRIATE WRIT MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
AND QUASH THE LETTER DATED 13.12.2018 IN FILE
NO.«Ä¤/PÀgÁvÉÆëÄK/PÁ¤/¸ÀvÉÆÃC ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.8 TO
RESPONDENT NO.2 THE ATTESTED COPY OF WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-X;QUASH THE REPORT DATED 31.08.2018 IN FILE
NO.¥ÁæCUÀÄ/¥ÀÄgÀ¸¨
À /sÉ 253/2017-18 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
RESPONDENT NO.1, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-W
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2889
WP No. 200780 of 2019
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri Basava Kiran G.S. appearing for learned counsel Sri D.P.Ambekar for respondent No.8.
2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"a) To grant appropriate writ more so in the nature of certiorari and quash the letter dated 13.12.2018 in file No.«Ä¤/PÀgÁvÉÆëÄK/PÁ¤/¸ÀvÉÆÃC issued by respondent No.8 to respondent No.2 the attested copy of which is at Annexure-X.
b) Quash the report dated 31.08.2018 in file No.¥ÁæCUÀÄ/¥ÀÄgÀ¸¨ À /sÉ 253/2017-18 submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.1, the copy of which is at Annexure-W.
c) To issue any writ, order, directions as this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2889 WP No. 200780 of 2019
3. Based on the complaint given by some person, who is having ill-will against the petitioners purportedly a whistleblower, an enquiry is said to have been held by the Regional Commissioner and based on which, Annexure-X came to be passed by respondent No.8 - the Mission Director, Horticulture Department.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Regional Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to hold an enquiry and file a report as per Annexure-W and the Mission Director did not have any further jurisdiction to act on the report given by the Regional Commissioner in passing the order at Annexure-X.
5. Under what provisions of law, the enquiry is initiated by the Regional Commissioner is not forthcoming from Annexure-W. Therefore, the very jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner in enquiring into the matter itself is doubtful. Be it what it may. Since the petitioners are not properly heard in the enquiry, the report at Annexure- -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2889 WP No. 200780 of 2019 W and consequent order at Annexure-X need to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The writ petition stands allowed.b) The orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 8
vide Annexures-W and X respectively stand quashed.
c) However, if there are any misdeeds that have been committed by the petitioners, the authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law and pass suitable orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE SRT CT:SI List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61