Karnataka High Court
S S Nagesh vs Dr B R Ambedkar Development on 4 January, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF JANUARY. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS.3uST1CE:,'i\iiAAmu.VLA._ CIHELL-l.jRVV THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEATTUGOr:>A,L_~A'fCaOw'9'AaA WRIT APPEAL No;'E§2iVf3A3/2009(.S'4'T.é=) BETWEEN: S.S. Nagesh, " _ . Son of Sui3baray'appa,;" Age 36 years," pregentty w'0--r*kin"g District Main-aqer;lfV_D~r.B.[f:[_Anjbe_dé»:far . Deveir)pmer1ElC.0rp'Qrat4iCm_ Ltd.,-- Tumkzsr District; 'K-aLrr'..eafaA.§<a~--State. 4- APPELLANT (By SH. S';9ra !<,aS'rT_ S'he'try..;' Adv.) 'V 1; bedkar Deveiopment 1'-:1 C0r'pQvrat%'iO._n".Ltd., 9"' 8: 10"' Fioor, ._ " «.\V;e'«.\/".'i'='!E_'r»..i__ Tower, Dr.B.R.Arnbed|<ar '.__Veedhi,jBangaiore -- 560 001 Rep'---.A bx"/"its Managing Director. .+..H.R."'Arun Kumar, San of Rangaiah G.R., 'Age 38 years, Dr.B.R.Ambedi<ar Development Corporation Ltd., Raichur. RESPONDENTS
This Writ Appeal is filed under section 4 of the Karnataka l~iigh Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition No.32038/2009(8) __._dated 08/12/2009.
This appeal coming on for preliminary day, VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J, delivered the fQ4'lE.OWlllg':" ' JUDGMEN:
13' respondent is the"er'nployer».. 2 App'e'l'la{n't«..,aVnd 2%"-.010' respondent are the empioyees_.:VV"-if*=.respo'ri-dlevnt passed an order dated 30.10.2009, appellant from Raichtir respondent from Tumkur to Ralc:hi.ir.* uS'aid'order:0iNas'"ch'allenged by 2"" respondent in W.P.,.32038}20:09.e7' Learned Single Judge while ordering '~..,..no'ttl-do act the writmpleitition on 2.11.2009, ordered interim .p'i"fl."thVe.,:_.~~said order of transfer (Annexure-C). Re*s,pon_denVltjsA0in the writ petition i.e., appellant and the employer flied applications for vacating the said interim at-.,oirdei--". Learned Single Judge by an order dated 8.12.2009 mhias held that, hearing of the application would amount to hearing the petition on merits and therefore, directed to i 5/ .
hear the application aiong with the main petition. The said order has been questioned in this appeai.
2. Sri S.PraE<ash Shetty, iearned counsei for appeiiant wouid urge two contentions.5"-FiVr.sti§é', the' iearned Singie Judge ought not to ihavet.ent'ertai'n'edjA.theit writ petition when the order under 7c,'haViie§nge' petition is an order of trans'ie.rg""p.assed in p.utb-iic'i_:n'terest by"? the authoritY coh":i3et.Eht tQr---«i--fi:a'Ss"'--»tF1e 0rdve,r...f§ Learned counsei referred to .adieci.sior}is'V'ofyt:h'e.VApex Court to contend t~h'at,vthe-»Cour't=.shouid not normaiiy interfere with the order"oftransferi._a"nd"\.'i'the impugned order of transfer is not'3--thetA'one whi-chV___c_aiis for interference in exercise of writ i §:u'risdi.c_tion«nuiidger Articie 226 of the Constitution of India. H Second'iy';--"."g:eag:r'ned Single Judge has faiied to exercise the juriiisdggictiondivested in him in not deciding the appiication seeigings vacation of interim order. It was contended that, iearned Singie Judge ought to have decided the Vwappiication for vacating the interim order instead of postponing the appiication for final hearing. E 4'
3. The writ petition has not yet been _adrn.i:tl'ted. Notice of the writ petition has only been..§'_:o'rd'le'r;'e.r.§ respondents. It is for the learnedyS,in_gie 3-u'dga:'t0'V'cronside4r""
the merit or otherwise of the writ,pe:t'iti..o'ni'and~ h'en'ce,..,iti1.i_s unnecessary for us to record any finrling on ..tlTi.€«~..{T}€.vli'lt or-_' otherwise of the writ petitio_nl:.u"-.:_i_eaving' «~opven_the issue whether interferencewith_the ._order of transfer (Annexure-C) is'. calie,di"'forfor'-.no_t 'decided by the learned d__ecEjd.i'ng:'t'h'e writ petition, the first c:jVntention., is answered.
4. "Leai'ned._§'irngle",.'i'Judge having noticed that the imvptigvned order.Q_f_._At.:ansfer has been effected within a i short p,e'i".i,0clrof___4 months from the date of the earlier order of the application would amount to heauringgythel petition on merits, has directed the application to'*-he posted for hearing aiong with the main petition.
"Learned Single Judge has aiso directed the registry to list it "the matter in the rnonth of February, 2010. Since the date indicated in the impugned order is not far away, the order under chailenged being the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge, we decléne to interfere with the impugned order. Second contention stands answered accordingly.
In view of the facts and CErcurnstances----n.Ao'tiCed::supra} -». the writ appeal is devoid of is needless to observe that,-.___the'V"i=e'g"éstVry.»vvv§'§Al..i:4;d.ost§ matter before the learned week of February, 2010. Ad X i ii A H Mie,c.'WV.13V1.it3l)"2iO@§"'for stay does not survive for cons':deratEo"n '~ Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/~ ' JUDGE "M, Ks;/--