Karnataka High Court
Suthan S. S., S/O. Shankare Gowda vs The Executive Director, on 12 April, 2017
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.103056/2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SUTHAN S. S., S/O. SHANKARE GOWDA
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
R/O:C/O. RAMESH PATIL,
SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE,
JAMAKHANDI ROAD,
MUDHOL, TALUK MUDHOL,
DIST:BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAVAN B DODDATTI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GVR INFRA PROJECT LTD.,
VBC SOLITAIRE,
9TH & 10TH FLOOR,
# 47 & 49, BAZAULLAH ROAD,
T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017,
TAMIL NADU.
2. THE DGM-HR,
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
VBC SOLITAIRE,
9TH & 10TH FLOOR,
# 47 & # 49, BAZAULLAH ROAD,
T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017,
TAMIL NADU
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
2
VBC SOLITAIRE,
9TH & 10TH FLOOR,
# 47 & # 49, BAZAULLAH ROAD,
T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017,
TAMIL NADU
4. THE VICE PRESIDENT
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE,
NEAR CHINCHINI VILLAGE,
CHIKODI, TALUK CHIKODI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
5. SITE INCHARGE
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE,
NEAR CHINCHINI VILLAGE,
CHIKODI, TALUK CHIKODI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
6. THE PROJECT MANAGER
GVR INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,
NEAR RTO OFFICE,
NEAR CHINCHINI VILLAGE,
CHIKODI, TALUK CHIKODI,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS
DATED:02.12.2016 AND 15.02.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND G
AND RELEASE SALARY OF PETITIONER FOR FIVE MONTHS I.E.,
FROM FEBRUARY, 2016 TO JUNE, 2016 WITH INTEREST.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Petitioner in the above writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-F and G.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the writ petition and Annexures produced along with the writ petition.
3. According to the averments made in the writ petition petitioner was appointed as Civil Engineer (Highways) by the respondent Company on 26.09.2014 and he worked in the said company till 14.06.2016.
4. Grievance of the petitioner is respondents have not paid Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) salary for the period from February 2016 to June 2016 and therefore he has submitted a representation to the respondents requesting them to pay him arrears of salary. The further grievance of the petitioner is that respondents neither paid Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) salary nor considered the representation submitted by the petitioner at Annexure F and G.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondents which was earlier a private company later converted in to public limited company. However, it is 4 not the case of the petitioner that respondent is a Government undertaking or an institution financed by the State or Central Government and an instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and could maintain the writ petition and therefore writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Company to consider representations submitted by the petitioner at Annexures F and G is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE VB