Karnataka High Court
Sawanth R.S vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB
WP No. 201968 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.201968 OF 2023 (K-SAT)
BETWEEN:
SAWANTH R.S.
S/O SHYAMBHA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OLD
WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER
SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER COMPLEX
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH AND SRI J. AUGUSTIN, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FOREST (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE)
FORCE ARANYA BHAVAN
MALLESHWARAM
18TH CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB
WP No. 201968 of 2023
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
CANARA CIRCLE, OFFICE OF CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SIRSI
UTTARA KANNADA - 577 101.
4. SRI GURURAJ S GOUDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SATHU
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER CUM SURVEYOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICE GUNDA
KALI TIGER RESERVE
KANARA CIRCLE.
5. SRI SHANKARAGOUDA B MUDIGOUDAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O BASANAGOUDA
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER CUM SURVEYOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICE JOIDA
HALIYAL DIVISION, KANARA CIRCLE.
6. SRI VIJAYA MAHANTESH HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O APPAYYA
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER CUM SURVEYOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICE JOIDA
HALIYAL DIVISION, KANARA CIRCLE.
7. SRI RAGHAVENDRA JIRAGALE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O GURURAJ
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER CUM SURVEYOR
RANGE FOREST OFFICE MASTIKATTA
KARWAR DIVISION, KANARA CIRCLE.
8. SRI MANJUNATH JAGADAL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O GURULINGAPPA
DEPUTY RANGE FOREST
OFFICER CUM SURVEYOR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB
WP No. 201968 of 2023
RANGE FOREST OFFICE HIREGUTTI
HONNAVAR DIVISION, KANARA CIRCLE.
9. SRI SRINIVAS U. NAIK
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O UMESH NAIK
WORK AS DEPUTY RANGE
FOREST OFFICER YELLAPURA
RANGE YELLAPURA
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI P.S.RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI B.O.ANILKUMAR AND
SRI SHARATH KUMAR B.G., ADVOCATES FOR R4 AND R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.1416 TO 1420 OF
2021 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BELAGAVI AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.04.2023 PASSED
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION NO.1416 TO 1420 OF 2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 09.02.2024 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB
WP No. 201968 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a Forest Guard, is promoted as a Deputy Range Forest Officer [DRFO] and he is further promoted as Range Forest Officer [RFO]. The concerned has finalized the Seniority List of the DRFO in Canara Circle [Canara Circle - Seniority List], and they have also published the State Wise DRFO - Seniority List based on the Canara Circle - Seniority List and the similar Seniority Lists for the DRFOs in other circles across the State. The private respondents [and even the petitioner] are from the Canara Circle, and the private respondents have impugned the Canara Circle - Seniority List in their Applications in Nos.1416-1420/2021 with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 20.04.2023, has allowed Applications in Nos.1416- 1420/2021 and similar other applications.
2. The Tribunal has quashed the Canara Circle - Seniority List with liberty to the concerned to redo such list -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 after considering different representations. The petitioner has impugned the Tribunal's order dated 20.04.2023 contending, amongst others, that the Canara Circle - Seniority List could not have been interfered with when the same has resulted in a combined State-Wise Seniority List and that the Tribunal's order seriously prejudices the petitioner's interest inasmuch as he has been promoted to the cadre of RFO based on such State-wise Seniority List. The petitioner emphasizes that he is not a party in the applications before the Tribunal, and as such, he is entitled to impugn the Tribunal's order.
3. The private respondents have raised preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the writ petition. On 12.01.2024, Sri P.S.Rajagopal, the learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents, canvassed on their behalf that the impugned order is by the Tribunal sitting at Belagavi, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by such order, the remedy, even if available before this Court, would not be before this Bench but would be before a Division Bench at Dharwad. The learned Senior counsel also canvassed that if -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 the petitioner's grievance is because he has not been heard by the Tribunal, he must necessarily avail remedy before the Tribunal either by way of a review application or by a separate original application and this writ petition will not be maintainable.
4. This Court, being of the considered view that if the private respondents succeed on the first ground, the merits of the next ground, which is again on the maintainability of the writ petition, will have to be examined by the Division Bench of this Court at Dharwad and by this Bench, has heard Sri Nitin Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.S.Rajagopal and Smt. Maya T.R., the learned High Court Government Pleader, on the following question:
Whether this Court must opine that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioner, in the circumstances of this case, must necessarily approach the Division Bench of this Court at Dharwad.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023
5. Sri Nitin Ramesh submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid vs. State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Department of Transport and another1[Abdul Wajid's Case] has, amongst others, declared that a civil servant will have the option to approach that Bench of this Court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the place where he/she is working or to approach that Bench of this Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the subject decision is taken. Sri Nitin Ramesh relies upon para-43 of this decision which reads as follows:
"In that view of the matter, we do not see any substance in the objection raised by the office. The petitioner is a resident of Bidar District. The order of suspension was passed by the respondents who are situated within Bangalore City within the jurisdiction of Principal Bench of High Court of Karnataka. Even if that order had been passed by an authority within jurisdiction of Bijapur District which falls within the jurisdiction of a Bench at Gulbarga as the said order has to be challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for 1 ILR 2014 KAR 5805 -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 short 'KAT'), the petitioner had to approach the KAT which is situated at Bangalore. Against the order passed by the KAT the person aggrieved has a right to approach the Bench within whose jurisdiction, KAT is situated. Therefore, when the impugned order is passed within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Bangalore, the Principal Bench at Bangalore has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. Similarly because the petitioner was working and residing at Bidar coming within the jurisdiction of Gulbarga Bench and an order is passed keeping him under suspension, even if it is to be held that the case is arising from out of Bidar, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said orders both at the Principal Bench at Bangalore and Bench at Gulbarga. The choice is that of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the KAT is maintainable."
6. Sri Nitin Ramesh argues that the Division Bench's judgment in Abdul Wajid's Case is in the light of the High Court of Karnataka [Establishment of permanent benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga] Order, 2013 - hereafter referred to as the Presidential Order, 2013- notified on -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 14.08.2013 which specifically empowers the Chief Justice of this High Court to nominate the Judges who will sit at Gulbarga in respect of cases arising in the districts of Bidar, Bijapur, Gulbarga and Raichur, and that a case would definitely arise in every place where there is cause of action, which is essentially a bundle of facts which must be proved to be entitled for d decision. The learned counsel argues that in terms of this proposition underscored in Abdul Wajid's Case the petitioner, as dominus litis, could have chosen to file writ petition before this Bench as he is working within the territorial jurisdiction of this Division Bench or before this Court's Division Bench in Dharwad as the impugned order is by the Tribunal's Bench at Belagavi.
7. Sri Nitin Ramesh argues that the cause of action for the petitioner is in a bundle of circumstances such as [i] finalization of Canara Circle -Seniority List, [ii] finalization of the State Wise Seniority List, [iii] the petitioner's promotion as DRFO based on these Seniority Lists and the subsequent promotion as RFO, [iv] the petitioner's current workplace, and that each of these events are at different places. The
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 learned counsel emphasizes the Canara Circle - Seniority List is finalized in Sirsi, the State Wise Seniority List of DRFOs is finalized and promotion orders are issued from Bengaluru and the petitioner is working in Vijayapura; and as such, the petitioner could have invoked this Court's jurisdiction based on each of these circumstances because a case has arisen, as contemplated under the Presidential Order, 2013 in each of these places.
8. Sri Nitin Ramesh further argues that though the declaration by the Division Bench in Abdul Wajid's case has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs. Gopalkrishna2 [KPTCL's Case], but the Full Bench has not upset the proposition that a civil servant, as dominant litis, will have the option of invoking the jurisdiction of that Bench of this Court within whose territorial jurisdiction he/she works. The learned counsel contends that the Full Bench was only considering the merits of the observation in Abdul Wajid's case that the Registry cannot raise objections calling upon a 2 2021 SCC Online KAR 15766
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 petitioner to satisfy it about the jurisdiction before the writ petition is listed for preliminary hearing and that the Court alone can decide on the maintainability of the writ petition.
9. Sri P.S. Rajagopal submits that the cause of action for the petitioner may have arisen in each of the aforesaid places, but that would be relevant only insofar as the Tribunal's jurisdiction, but once the Tribunal's jurisdiction at a particular Bench is invoked, the grievance as against the Tribunal's order can only be considered by that Bench of this Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The learned Senior Counsel argues that the Tribunal is the first court insofar as any decision that affects the service conditions of a civil servant in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and this Court's jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is because of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 Kumar vs. Union of India3[referred to as, 'L. Chandra Kumar's case'].
10. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, relying upon the different paragraphs in L. Chandra Kumar's case', argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that all decisions of an Administrative Tribunal will be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls, and that this enunciation clearly exposits that insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts as against the decisions of the Tribunal, it will be dependent on where the Tribunal is situate.
11. Sri P.S. Rajagopal contends that this position is emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay4 [Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case] pointing out that in this case an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was transferred 3(1997) 3 SCC 261 4 (2022) 3 SCC 133
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata under Section 23 thereof to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the question for consideration was before which High Court the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi should be challenged and decided. The learned Senior Counsel canvasses that the Supreme Court has cautioned that when law is declared by the Constitution Bench underscoring that the decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls, a bench of lesser quorum of the Supreme Court, or for that matter High Courts, cannot revisit the proposition by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether territorial jurisdiction is contemplated in it within the ambit of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution and that any other view would result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction.
12. Sri P.S. Rajagopal relies upon paras-38 and 40 of the decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case to underscore the above, and these paragraph read as follows:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 "When once a Constitution Bench of this Court declared the law that "all decisions of Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution will be subject to the scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls", it is impermissible to make any further construction on the said issue. The expression "all decisions of these Tribunals" used by the Constitution Bench will cover and take within its sweep orders passed on applications or otherwise in the matter of transfer of original applications from one Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench of the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Section 25 of the Act.
40. The law thus declared by the Constitution Bench cannot be revisited by a Bench of lesser quorum or for that matter by the High Courts by looking into the bundle of facts to ascertain whether they would confer territorial jurisdiction to the High Court within the ambit of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. We are of the considered view that taking another view would undoubtedly result in indefiniteness and multiplicity in the matter of jurisdiction in situations when a decision passed under Section 25 of the Act is to be called in question especially in cases involving multiple parties residing within the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 jurisdiction of different High Courts albeit aggrieved by one common order passed by the Chairman at the Principal Bench at New Delhi."
13. Sri P.S. Rajagopal next canvasses that the Full Bench of this Court in KPTCL's case, while considering the decision of the Division Bench in Abdul Wajid's Case wherein it is opined that a litigant who as dominus litis can have his forum conveniens, has specifically opined that forum conveniens is not a fundamental right similar to the right of access to justice and it is a double edged sword and acceptance of the decision in Abdul Wajid's case would result in some sort of judicial anarchy and the test of territorial jurisdiction must prevail.
14. The petitioner's case in the controversy over the maintainability of the petition is essentially premised in two propositions: firstly, that the petitioner, as dominus litis, has the right of forum conveniens, which though not a fundamental right [like the right to access justice] is still a right, and therefore, the petitioner can choose to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 Constitution before such Bench of this Court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the concerned Tribunal's seat or over the place where the petitioner is working; secondly, that the cause of action is a bundle of facts and when a case arises, as contemplated under the Presidential Order, 20135, the jurisdiction of the appropriate Bench of this Court in any place where a case has arisen can be invoked.
15. This Court must observe that the question of forum conveniens in choosing to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in KPTCL's case, and the Full Bench has observed thus in paras-20 and 21:
"20. It may be noted that 'forum convenience' is a double-edged sword. It applies to both the petitioner/appellant and respondent. If a litigant from Kalaburagi approaches the Principal Seat at 5 The Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka may, from time to time, nominate the Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, who shall sit,-- (ii) at Gulbarga in respect of cases arising in the Districts of Bidar, Bijapur, Gulbarga and Raichur in order to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the time being vested in that High Court in the State of Karnataka.
The underlining is by this Court
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 Bengaluru, he drags even the private respondents to the Principal Seat, their inconvenience notwithstanding. There may be cases where the same judgment or order is challenged by both the parties before the High Court. In such an eventuality, if the judgment of this High Court in Abdul Wajid's case (supra) is accepted, one party can file appeal in Kalaburagi Bench and the other at the Principal Seat. Because of this, in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "some sort of judicial anarchy shall come into play".
21. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because it was convenient for the petitioner to file a petition at the Principal Seat the petition at the Principal Seat was not maintainable on account of the territorial jurisdiction, otherwise, people will start forum shopping/forum hunting while filing cases before the Principal Seat or before the Benches keeping in view their comfort level as well as the other factors."
16. This Court must observe that with this enunciation it is settled that forum conveniens is not an unbridled right available to a litigant and this right is subject to the territorial test for reasons such as forum
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 shopping, possibilities of the choice of forum leading to judicial anarchy, aspects highlighted by the Full Bench. As such, this Court must opine that the proposition as aforesaid resulting in primacy to the territorial test takes precedence over the exposition in decision of the Division Bench in Abdul wajid's case insofar as the principle of forum conveniens, and the petitioner cannot draw support therefrom.
17. The proposition that cause of action is a bundle of facts is too trite to be a matter of quarrel, and similarly, the canvas that in every place of where there is cause of action, a case arises would also be beyond quarrel. However, the enunciation in the first regard in Abdul Wajid's case and the next aspect as canvassed, which will be corollary of this enunciation must be necessarily examined in the light of the next mentioned circumstances. When the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Wajid's case emphasised the proposition as aforesaid, the Tribunal had its seat only in Bangalore but now, the Tribunal has its principal bench in Bangalore and benches in Belagavi and
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 Kalaburagi. The Tribunals' bench in Belagavi falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court's Dharwad Bench and the Tribunal's bench in Kalaburagi falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.
18. Further, the Division Bench in Abdul wajid's case, though has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case, the principle that emerges from this decision as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case. The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case has observed that the Tribunal would be the first court in view of the scheme under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the judicial review of a Tribunal's decision will be by a Division Bench of that High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. This proposition underscores the territorial test, and is exposited in clearer terms by the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023
19. In Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case the facts may not be entirely the same as in the present case, but this Court must observe that that the test of territorial jurisdiction qua the Tribunal's seat for the purposes of invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India is determinative with the declaration that after the Constitutional Bench's decision in L Chandra Kumar's case it would not be open to even Supreme Court's Bench of lesser quorum to look into a bundle of facts to ascertain whether there would territorial jurisdiction. This Court must refer to the Supreme Court's next decision in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and others6, and in this decision the question relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned High Court to decide a challenge to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi has been referred to a larger Bench. The Supreme Court has referred to both L. Chandra Kumar's case and Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case. 6 [2023] 5 SCC 706
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023
20. However, until there is a decision after reference as aforesaid declaring that the territorial test will not be determinative, this Court must opine that, with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Alapan Bandyopadhyay's case and the Full Bench of this Court in KPTCL's Case and the settled propositions that cause of action is a bundle of facts and a case arises in every place there is cause of action and that the Tribunal will be the first court of jurisdiction subject to judicial review by a Division Bench of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution, the position that will prevail is that a litigant, who chooses to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 will have the right of forum conveniens, but subject to the notifications that are issued by the Tribunal to regulate the jurisdiction of its different benches, and as regards the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's order it must be that Division Bench of this Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the concerned Bench of the Tribunal has decided the dispute.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023
21. In the light of the above it is concluded that the petitioner should have necessarily filed this petition before the Division Bench of this Court at Dharwad, and the question for consideration is answered accordingly. The petitioner has the advantage of interim order of stay of the Tribunal's impugned order dated 20.04.2023 for a period of over 5 months, and because this Court is refusing to entertain the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner must not only have the liberty to file a fresh petition before the Division Bench of this Court at Dharwad but must also have the benefit of the interim order as aforesaid for a period of 8[eight] weeks. Hence, the following:
ORDER [a] The petition is rejected on the ground of territorial jurisdiction but with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the Division Bench of this Court in Dharwad.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1659-DB WP No. 201968 of 2023 [b] The Tribunal's impugned order dated 20.04.2023 shall remain stayed for a period of 8 [eight] weeks from today.
[c] The registry is directed to return the certified copy of the tribunal order dated 20.04.2023 to the learned counsel and record for the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk Ct;Vk