Karnataka High Court
Sri K T Rajan vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 25 November, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
the fiiing of the writ petitign. In this regarci he Wouid pI__fa(:e:
reiiance an several decisions of this ce'u:"3:, including .L'f1v3.i_"'-0f'--,V
sevarai a.:iixs'isi0n bench juégrraents, wherein such reiiéf' hasVvb3éa1 _""T V'
restricted and he would reiy on 21 1'ec¢21fjudgms.é:--ntthe fslpéx
court in Umiarz af India vs. Taizsfem
wherein the apex has bald as f0i10aa%':s.:f
"7. To As*an2:¢z£z%i_sj_e, :fJ£>i7n?,i£f;f, ¢; ".%ze!arecf
5er'vz'::'e related cfaizéi ME! "£'.e.'V*rg';jec_zéTr;? 'nntfize
ground (if uieiay czzzzi' 'fcza.:'Ei«3$ (>w'2:3_:'€ }'gr2j;éc;'3§-* is
V ":'§17sig§ a:7wz'iir ;L¥éE.€:.;'£}22;V,_'3V 5-§:¥c:;z:;z§ér2;2
('L1»'i2;:é?Q§ ::én2.%3a}? "--:I_£ :.s*égg.i;iV" £':§g «j;:é" €;p;9£§Cazi{2n 50
ivlhejvA1ir;;2.in}';f;--?5j;:;£_i1».3_ 'Zf:%fb:iI2aZ,},m_,}0ne of Ike
_ e}iEé;:sifir2§é~§«r;2 'L's(;__z'(Z r:,;_?3 is c'czses relating £0 5:
' 4<'z)%z££n;zf%zv5A{~,_f§ws7;f:%ig»., ..-'Wfzere :3: .s'e;'17fce reiamif
<£"!'C'»Zi'f?Z ._!9a.,si_e'éi 5;: c0nzinL:ix:,g wrong, reiief
(,'azz2"'.€2¢;{ g%;c:I1{e':;?' even if {here is ca: fang cfelay :3»:
VV';i'gj6:3%ii1g'i;é'}ff.;E';if}f, with ?"8f€F€f?C'€ :0 the daze on
5&9 ::'<)12t:'m::i?2g wrzmg camnzemed, sf
« f .._gufifz";*{2::rinL:é:zg wrorzg c:*e5zze.s' 2:2 mz2fz'm.2;irag
' .;A.é*€2$;:'c=€ Qf i§I2j££?"j2. fizz: there 55; {mi ex::e;;£z':m :3
{"593 s.>x.:*e;3rz'sm, if 5335: griemrzcsa 5:9 in re§g:*e:c? {Ef
am}? am?!" 9:" czafm:T:'zzIs;z'r'czfivz? ::fe{?£§i{2n whfijfz
refatecf I0 9;' é€ffec§ez§ s€"v-Na? €'}fz28fiS' aim, am? if
the re0pe:':i:'zg of Efze iS$I.£€ wrnzfa' a;,I{"f}3c§ zhe
é
E-<1»
Themfere, the Eearned counsei wouid
apparentiy, thosagh the difference in the §)3;}'~SC2,i.i§, H
dz-mied to the petitianer is a cause 0§" a'?é,ti'<3rr_
time it is denied to the p:=:tit.i0n¢;r,_ the»A:i'e_cfg'~,/%:'£":y?
only extend to three years prim Efi§"'tg.f§:i.a't€v.0f A '
In the instant: casg,' having
praferred 3. wrig gsfiéfition i'n the year 2003,
the 'benefit cgf: pfifif E0 the fiiing of
the which benefit has been
extefikicié' {Q 'ifié"'V.Hénce, the. gezitianer is practiuded
frag) rai§i::.g_{? av amrears aver: from the year 1986.
thé'sve--€t~i'ecI positien of iaw, the fact {hat the
» 1re3p0t:dcn';s "'é1ave cenferyed 323: such benefit an ether
._e'f%;pEdy*é€;v$_§;:$§*s%. iilflfi, by itsehi Vs/'Q1}E§ moi negate {E16 Sstiied
Eeg-31% pzésiziéxz ami {he peiétfimser canméi {5}}; 0;': E316 same a3 3.
..gr§>:.:nd"' of chaiienge, chiming a_:'bitr3r§-=' i:3;'e2:{ment, Tha
3
respondents are beund to abide by tirae iew ef the land. Hence,
the game cannot be cited as a precedent to be appfieci preeent case on hand and therefere, wouid seek tha§ L:§'1E * be dismissed. -
5. In the abeve facte £:'e c1~..ei.r<:{{ms'iaeeesgi' ' learned Senior Advocate fies out a case on behaif of the that are annexed to the ezeiejggeent 'e.e'eeistent1y taken a View that a::sT¢f;::: a.1f"2'ee,es is concerned, the samev'Ve'af1'r1t3xI:: three years from the date of c1e:£ :nVV:--a;3dV ties" :.':.§:;.€1js_»'eeV§§1»:'%e-'iterate& in the abeve jeszigmem 0%' the:.ape'x eéu€:_'The .'apg'§erent denial of such ciaims beyond «ifiiee date of ciaim, is reiatabie to the law 0f ._ i.i'§;;it21i:iéf§';:,_ aifihiéh would disable a eiaimarit frem. Eecevering weenie-S due {G him from 3 thiidwparty even beyené three years " 'A {mm the eiaie <3? eiaim. "Fhe fee: the: me resgeedente have ac'kr1{>wEe-dgeé sash <:§.aim yersuaei :0 the filing ef ihe wri_i 3