Sri G Sannakenchappa vs The Karnataka Rural on 18 October, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri G Sannakenchappa vs The Karnataka Rural on 18 October, 2012

Bench: Subhash B Adi

                                          W.P.NO.376/2012
                            1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

            WRIT PETITION No.376/2012 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI G SANNAKENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE G SANNABASAPPA,
WORKING AS TASK FORCE COMMANDER
O/O DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KRIDL
DAVANAGERE & R/AT DOOR NO.774/30,
"SIDDHANTHA NILAYA"
SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY LAY OUT
II STAGE, DAVANAGERE.
                                   ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV., FOR
  M/S SUBBARAO & CO., ADVS.,)


AND:

1 THE KARNATAKA RURAL
  INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
  LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
  UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY THE
  MANAGING DIRECTOR,
  CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
  RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
  BANGALORE

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
  THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
  INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
  LIMITED, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
                                                   W.P.NO.376/2012
                              2

  RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE

3 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
  INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
  LIMITED, CHINNASWAMY STADIUM,
  RAJBHAVAN ROAD,
  BANGALORE
                           ...RESPONDENTS

( BY SRI. G.S.KANNUR, ADV., FOR R1
  R2 & 3 SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.10.07 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE
ANNX-H AND QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DT 2.4.08,
ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-K.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Though the petitioner has called in question the order of punishment and order of appellate authority and reviewing authority, however, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rules provide review of the order passed by the appellate authority and it is statutory remedy available to the petitioner and accordingly, he had filed statutory review petition, but the respondent No.2-Reviewing authority has dismissed the review petition only on the ground that review petition is filed after six months. Learned counsel for the W.P.NO.376/2012 3 petitioner further submits that, review petition is filed within six months.

2. Even otherwise, if the review petition is filed, if there is delay, review petition should have been considered if there is sufficient cause shown for the delay and thereafter, it should have dispose of the review petition. Without considering the same, review petition was dismissed only on the ground of barred by limitation. In my opinion, order of review petition passed by Reviewing authority dated 21/24.06.2011 produced at Annexure-P is liable to be quashed.

3. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order produced at Annexure-P dated 21/24.06.2011 issued by respondent No.3 is quashed. Reviewing authority is directed to consider the review petition, on merit, if it is filed in time. If the review petition is filed after six months and if sufficient cause is shown by the petitioner, same may be considered and thereafter, consider the matter on merit. W.P.NO.376/2012 4

All the contentions raised in this writ petition are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE PMR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court