Karnataka High Court
The Secretary vs Sri.Mohan Jannu Gowda on 21 January, 2020
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra, Pradeep Singh Yerur
:1:
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 21 S T DAY OF JANU ARY 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NOS.113260-113262/2019 (S-CA T)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SECRETARY
THE MINIS TRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY)
INTEGRA TED HEAD QUARTERS,
DIRECTORA TE OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF
(FOR CCPO), HEADQUARTERS ,
WES TERN NA VAL COMMAND,
BALLARD TEAR, NAVY TIGER GATE,
MUMBAI-400001.
3. THE FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING
HEADQUARTERS,
KARNATAKA NAVA L AREA ,
SO (CIV) HEAD QUARTERS,
NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581308.
4. THE MATERIAL SU PT FOR (PAO)
MATERIAL ORGANISATION,
NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581308.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRU TYUNJAY TA TA BANGI, ADV.)
:2:
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAN JANNU GOWDA
S/O JANNU GOWD A,
AGED ABOUT 35 Y EARS,
WORKING AS S TO RE KEEPER,
NAVAL S TORE ORGANIZATION,
MATERIAL ORGANIZATION,
NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581308,
R/A T: H.NO .214, TODUR COLONY,
KARWAR-581324.
2. SRI. CHETAN K. NAIK
S/O KHEMU D. NA IK,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS S TO RE KEEPER,
NAVAL S TORE ORGANIZATIN,
MATERIAL ORGANIZATION,
NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581308,
R/A T: DURGADEVI TEMPLE,
COLONOY ROAD, TODUR, KARWAR-581324.
3. SRI. VINAYAK D TA NDAL
S/O DAMODAR Y TANDEL,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS S TO RE KEEPER,
NAVAL S TORE ORGANIZATION,
MATERIAL ORGANIZATION,
NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581308,
R/A T: CHITRAKULA, SEA BIARD COLONY,
SADASHIVGAD, U TTARA KANNADA-581352.
4. SRI. NAVEEN KUM AR
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT S TORE,
C/O COMMANDING IN CHIEF (FOR CCPO),
HQ EASTERN NAVAL COMMAND, VISHKAPATNAM,
ANDRA PRADESH STA TE - 531022
5. SRI.GUNDER SING H
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT S TORE,
C/O COMMANDING IN CHIEF (FOR CAPO),
ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS,
:3:
PORT BLAIR-744101
6. SRI. ANAND GOURANG DAS
WORKING SUPERINTENDENT S TORE,
C/O FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF ,
HQ WES TERN NA VAL COMMAND, MUMBAI-400001
7. SRI.Y .SUDARSHAN
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT S TORES,
C/O FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF ,
(FOR CCPO), HQ NAVAL BASE, KARWAR-581301.
....RESPONDENTS
(SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 DISPENSED WITH)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT O R ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO S ET A SIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINIS TRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICA TION
NO.170/00360/2017 DATED 23.10.2018 PRODUCED AS
PER ANNEXU RE-A AND DISMISS THE
O.A.NO.170/00360/2017 BY ALLOWING THE PRSENT
WRIT PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, K.N.PHANEENDRA, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are contesting respondents has filed an additional memo in continuation of the memo which has already been filed on 02.01.2020. :4:
2. In the said memo, it is specifically stated that, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have no objection to set aside the order passed in O.A.No.170/00360/2017 and they are ready and willing to withdraw O.A.NO.170/00360/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'CAT') as the respondent Nos.1 to 3 accept the seniority list prepared by the authority which was challenged in O.A.No.170/00360/2017. Therefore, they prayed for allowing of the writ petitions.
3. In view of the above said two memos, it is virtually respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought for permission to withdraw O.A.No.170/00360/2017 filed before the CAT. In view of the above said memos, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are the applicants in O.A.No.170/00360/2017 are hereby permitted to withdraw the petition filed :5: by them before the CAT in O.A.No.170/00360/2017.
4. Consequently the impugned Judgment/Order passed by the CAT does not survive for consideration on merits. Hence, the same is hereby set aside and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.
5. In view of withdrawal of the said original application itself by the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the issuance of notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 does not arise. Hence, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 is dispensed with.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-