Karnataka High Court
Channappa Soudatti S/O. Channabasappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2013
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.68678-68679/2011 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1.CHANNAPPA SOUDATTI
S/O.CHANNABASAPPA SOUNDATTI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O.MADHIHAL MAIN ROAD
NEAR CHIDAMBAR SEEVE
SAMEETHI, DHARWAD.
2.SMT.PREMA B.BHADRAGOUDAR
W/O.LATE BASAVANA BHADRAGOUDA
AGED ABOU 57 YEARS
R/O.H.D.M.C. RAYAPUR
HOSAONI, TQ. & DIST.DHARWAD. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RAVI HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
2
HUSBANDARY & FISHERIES, IV FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.THE DIRECTOR
(NOW DESIGNATED AS COMMISSIONER)
ANIMAL HUSBANDARY & VETERNARY
SERVICES, II FLOOR, V MINI TOWERS
BANGALORE-560 001.
3.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
DHARWAD MILK PRODUCERS
CO-OP. UNION LTD.,
LAKKAMMANAHALLI
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2 AND
SRI. HARISH PATIL, FOR K.L.PATIL, ADV FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KAT IN APPLICATION NO.2033/2001 DATED
05.01.2010 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-S.
ETC.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
N.K.PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These two petitioners assailing the correctness of the order impugned dated 5th January 2010 passed in 3 Application Nos.2033-2035/2001 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-S, have presented the instant writ petitions, wherein they had sought to declare that fresh options obtained from the applicants/petitioners herein during June 1997 without providing the fresh service conditions as per directions of the Tribunal is bad in law and to direct the respondents to delete their names in Annexure-2 of the Government Order dated 1-2-2000 and to treat them as Government servants on deputation by incorporating their names in Annexure-A, Government Order produced along with the main petition. The applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. Assailing the said order, the petitioners have presented the instant writ petitions.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri.Ravi Hegde, for quite some time. 4
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the out set submitted that the instant writ petitions filed by the petitioners may be dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy by filing a representation seeking terminal benefits, before the appropriate competent authority and the competent authority may be directed to consider the same without being influenced by the observations made by the Tribunal in the order impugned and all the grounds urged in the writ petitions be left open.
4. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as stated supra is placed on record.
5. These two writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioners to redress their grievances before the appropriate competent authority if they are so advised. In the event, such a representation is submitted by these petitioners, the competent authority 5 shall consider and dispose off the same without being influenced by the observations made in the order dated 5-1-2010 passed in Application Nos.2033-2035/2001 on the file of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore vide Annexure-S.
6. With these observations, the writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*