Karnataka High Court
M.N.Somashekar vs The Principal Secretary on 21 April, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.27566 OF 2013 (S - RES)
BETWEEN:
M.N. SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ADVOCATES & EX.SPL P.P
'KRISHNA NILAYA', NAIDU STREET
POST OFFICE ROAD
CHICKMAGALUR - 577 101
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.C. JAGADEESH, ADV.,)
AND:
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR STATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.10.2012
VIDE ANNEXURE - E PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AS
THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
2
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE PETITIONER THE
RETAINERSHIP AMOUNT AS FIXED BY GOVERNMENT TO
HIM AS SPECIAL P.P. FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.08.2009
TILL 27.01.2010 AS PER RULES FORTHWITH.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, an advocate practicing at Chickmagaluru was appointed on 30.12.2003 as Special Public Prosecutor to the Fast Tract Court-II at Chickmagaluru for a period of two years from the date of reporting of duty or till further orders, whichever is earlier. The period was extended from time to time and ultimately on 17.02.2009. Retainership amount for the period upto 27.01.2010 having not been paid, after submitting a representation, WP No.20916/2012 was filed asking for a mandamus. By an order dated 25.07.2012 the petition was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the representation made and take 3 appropriate decision. In pursuance thereof a decision having been taken on 17.10.2012 vide Annexure-E, this petition was filed to quash the same and for issuing a direction to the respondent to pay the retainership amount for a period from 01.08.2009 till 27.01.2010.
2. Fast Track Court-II, Chickmagaluru was transferred to Bengaluru on 09.07.2009. Thus, there was no Court available for the petitioner to discharge the duty as Special Public Prosecutor. The claim made by the petitioner that he discharged his duty even after abolition of Fast Track Court-II, in Fast Tract Court-I, on the instructions of the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court-I, whenever the Special Public Prosecutor of Fast Track Court-I was on leave or absent is not established by production of any material. That apart, the communication of Principal District and Sessions Judge, as at Annexure-R3, makes clear that after 4 shifting of Fast Track Court-II from Chickmagaluru, the petitioner did not discharged duty as Special Public Prosecutor from 05.08.2009 onwards.
3. Sri.D.C.Jagadeesh, learned advocate for the petitioner did not dispute the statement as appearing in Annexure-R3, as even in the reply submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-R5, on 05.10.2012, he has not furnished any particulars with regard to he having discharged duty in Fast Track Court-I. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner did not discharge the duty as Special Public Prosecutor from the date Fast Track Court-II at Chickmagaluru was transferred to Bengaluru City.
4. Only contention of Sri.D.C.Jagadeesh, learned advocate is that the appointment of the petitioner having not been terminated, on account of shifting of Fast Track Court-II at Chickmagaluru to 5 Bengaluru City, the petitioner is entitled to be paid the retainership fee till 27.01.2010.
5. Sri.M.S.Subramani, learned High Court Government Pleader contested the claim by referring to the statement of objections filed and the documents produced along with it.
6. The respondent while taking the decision vide Annexure-E, in pursuance of the order as at Annexure-B, has referred to the material aspects including the input received from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagaluru and also the failure of the petitioner to produce any material in support of the assertion that he did discharged duty in Fast Track Court-I at Chickmagaluru. As the Court to which the petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor ceased to exist at Chickmagaluru with effect from 09.07.2009, the petitioner having not discharged 6 the duty, there is no merit in the claim made that he should be paid the retainership amount even after Fast Track Court-II was shifted from Chickmagaluru to Bengaluru City. That, on account of the Court to which the petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor having been shifted and the petitioner having not discharged the duty at the transferred place, there is no justification to direct the respondent to pay to the petitioner, the retainership amount. After Fast Track Court-II, Chickmagaluru was transferred, the petitioner must have practiced in the Court at Chickmagaluru and the Special Public Prosecutor appointed to the transferred Court ie., at Bengaluru must have been paid the retainership amount by the respondent. It is virtually a case of abolition of Fast Track Court-II at Chickmagaluru and hence the claim made by the petitioner is untenable.
7
7. In the circumstances, the findings entered by the respondent in Annexure-E cannot be termed as either arbitrary or perverse muchless illegal. As the case of the petitioner has been lawfully, there is no scope to interfere with Annexure-E or issue writ of mandamus against the respondent.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH