Karnataka High Court
Condominium Of Residents And Employees ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 5 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR5677, 2001(6)KARLJ552, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 479, (2001) 6 KANT LJ 552 (2002) 2 SERVLR 118, (2002) 2 SERVLR 118
Author: A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: A.V. Sreenivasa Reddy
JUDGMENT
1. The teaching staff of the Mangalore University and the Kuvempu University who are at loggerheads with the management of the various colleges in which they work, over the amount which the respective managements are entitled to deduct as rent for the quarters in their occupation, have preferred the present petitions.
2. The case lies in a narrow compass since the grievance of the petitioners is that their application to the first respondent-State to intercede in the matter and set right the anomaly by directing the respondents to scale down the amounts fixed by them as deductible from their salaries for the quarters in their occupation, has not been properly considered and orders passed thereon in accordance with the rules. It is their case that the State has simply passed the buck to the respective managements of the colleges without exercising its authority in the matter and it is most unlikely that the petitioner could get justice at the hands of the respective managements.
3. I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
4. The entire controversy boils down to the question as to what would be the appropriate amount that could be deducted towards rent of the quarters and how it has to be quantified. Obviously, there would be some guidelines in the form of rules or practice. A fixation made must be in accordance with the said rules or practice. Whether or not the fixation made by the various managements of the colleges is in accordance with the said rules or practice, which is purely a question of fact, has to be gone into and determined by the first respondent if an application is made to it by the aggrieved persons complaining of excess deduction. The onus lies on the State to determine the said issue with reference to the rules or the practice in vogue, A power which is so vested in an authority under the statute shall have to be exercised properly and with the sole purpose of bringing about a finality to the issue in dispute. Non-exercise of the power by the authority amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction which in turn amounts to refusal to do justice to the party who had come before it complaining of some arbitrary action by an instrumentality of the State. The State enjoys the power under Sub-section (2) of Section 133 of the Act to give directions to any educational institution. The section reads:
"(2) The State Government may give such directions to any educational institution or tutorial institution as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act or to give effect to any of the provisions contained therein or of any rules or orders made thereunder the Governing Council or the owner, as the case may be, of such institution shall comply with every such direction".
5. When a certain power is vested in an authority under a statute to determine issues that may arise in regard to certain spheres of administration, the authority exercising such power would be doing so in his capacity as quasi-judicial authority and such exercise of power would call for a judicial approach which must be reflected in a speaking order passed after extending the benefit of hearing to the parties. Therefore, an onus lies on it to determine an issue brought before it effectively and finally in order to advance the cause of justice. The impugned order which merely directs the respondents to examine the application and take appropriate action as per rules, without making any reference to any rule, is a bald and a non-speaking order and not one passed in the proper exercise of the power vested in it.
6. In the absence of such exercise of power by an authority discharging quasi-judicial function, it becomes almost impossible for this Court to pronounce on issues which involve mixed questions of fact and law. Hence, it becomes imperative to quash the impugned order and direct the State to consider the applications filed by the petitioners with it and give proper directions as may be expedient within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received to bring about a finality to the issue on hand, after hearing both the parties.
7. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly.