Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhujanga Shetty vs Deputy Commissioner on 7 September, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.442-443/2012 (GM-RES)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012(GM-RES)
IN W.P. NOs.442-443/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Bhujanga Shetty
S/o late Venkappa Shetty
Aged about 66 years
Sri Durga Nivas
Bajpe Kateel Road
Bajpe,
Mangalore Taluk-574142.
2. Sri Ullas R. Shetty
S/o late Ramachandra Shetty
Aged about 42 years
"Yashoram", Ayyakkri
Surathkal, Mangalore-14. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)
-2-
AND :
1. Deputy Commissioner
Dakshina Kannada
Mangalore.
2. Under Secretary to
Government of Karnataka
Revenue Department
(Rehabilitation)
M.S. Building
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 003.
3. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to the
Revenue Department
M.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 001.
4. Mangalore SEZ Project
No.16, Pranava Park
III Floor, Infantry Road
Bangalore-560 001
Rep by its
Managing Director & CEO.
5. Damodhar Shetty
S/o Boja Shetty
Age Major
R/a MSEZ Colony
Thokur Village
Mangalore.
6. Shivananda
C/o Jayaram Shetty
Age Major
-3-
R/a MSEZ, R & R Colony
Kulai, Mangalore.
7. Sri Dinesh H
S/o Honnaya Poojary
Age Major
R/a Shanthi Nagar
Bajpe Post
Mangalore-574142.
8. Sri Kiran Kumar
S/o Madhava Poojari
Age Major
R/a Jatha Bettu
Thota house
Jokatte Post
Mangalore.
9. Sri Kishore
S/o Ragu Shetty
Age Major
R/a Annapoorneshwari House
MSEZ, R & R Colony
Kodikere, Kulai
Mangalore.
10. Sri Sharath Kumar
S/o Thukaram Poojary
Kodimar House
Hosamane, Kalavar Post
Mangalore-574142. ..Respondents
(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;
Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;
Sri Sachin for M/s. Dharmashree
Associates, Adv., for R5 to R10)
-4-
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare clause
15.1 provision 1.0 and 4.1 of Annexure to the order dated
2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore vide
Annexure-A as ultravires.
IN W.P. NOs.432-436 & 437-441/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Sri Dinesh Shetty
S/o Shridhar Shetty
Aged about 35 years
Sri Krishna Dhama
Shivadurga Compound
Majila, Ullanje
Mennabettu, Kinnigoli
Mangalore Taluk.
2. Sri Keshava N. Poojary
S/o Nonayya Poojary
Aged about 43 years
'Bramari Nilaya'
Kodikeri, Kulai.
3. Reshma J. Shetty
W/o Jagadish Shetty
Patte Magandady House
Aged 31 years
Kudripadavu Post
Mangalore Taluk.
4. Vinod Victor Patrao
Aged 28 years
S/o Marul Patro
"Ave Maria", MRPL RR
SEZ Colony, Near Permudu
-5-
Higher Primary School
Maindaguri, Kulai
Mangalore.
5. Sri Praveen S. Shetty
S/o Subbayya Shetty
Aged about 36 years
Venkateshwara Building
Opp. Ayyappa Temple
K.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.
6. Sri Shailesh
S/o Vajranabha Kambli
Aged 19 years
Sri Satya Sai Sadana
Sankala Kariya, Mundkoor
Post, Karkala
Udupi District.
7. Kiran Kumar
S/o Ratnakar Shetty
Aged 25 years
'Sammbruddi', Shiva Durga
Compound, Majila Ullanji
Mannabettu Grama Kimingoli
Mangalore Taluk.
8. Prajwal S. Bangera
S/o Shankar Bangera
Aged 23 years
Sri nidhi Kanikatla Road
Permudu Post, Mangalore.
9. Bharathesh Shetty
S/o Shekar Shetty
Aged 27 years
Kalpavriksha, Permudu Post
Mangalore.
-6-
10. Mohammed Nawaz
S/o B.K. Hasanabba
Aged 30 years
Kolakutya House
Jokatle Road
Mangalore Taluk. ..Petitioners
(By Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Deputy Commissioner
Dakshina Kannada
Mangalore.
2. Under Secretary to
Government of Karnataka
Revenue Department
(Rehabilitation)
M.S. Building
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 003.
3. State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to the
Revenue Department
M.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-560 001.
4. Mangalore SEZ Project
No.16, Pranava Park
III Floor, Infantry Road
Bangalore-560 001
Rep by its
Managing Director & CEO.
-7-
5. Sri Damodhar Shetty
S/o Boja Shetty
Age Major
R/a MSEZ Colony
Thokur Village
Mangalore.
6. Sri Thejesh
S/o Ragava Poojary
Age Major
R/a Shiva Sanidhya
MSEZ Colony
Kalavar Post & Village
Mangalore.
7. Shivananda
C/o Jayaram Shetty
Age Major
R/a MSEZ, R & R Colony
Kulai, Mangalore.
8. Sri Niranjan Nandan Kumar
S/o Sadhashiva Poojary
R/a Dota House
Porkody Post & Village
Mangalore.
9. Sri Chittaranjan
Age Major
R/a Sanjivini Nilaya
Tayar Bettu
MNabjuru
Srinivasanagar
Mangalore.
10. Sri Ramesh
S/o Nonayya Suvadna
Age Major
-8-
R/a Gorimar House
Bajape, Mangalore.
11. Sri Deepak Kumar
C/o Baba Poojary
Age Major
R/a Bajpe Village & Post
Mangalore.
12. Sri Girisha
S/o Laxman Bangera
Age Major
R/a MSEZ Colony
Kalavar Post & Village
Mangalore-574142.
13. Sri Dinesh H
S/o Honnaya Poojary
Age Major
R/a Shanthi Nagar
Bajpe Post
Mangalore-574142.
14. Sri Kotian Nitin Ramnath
S/o Ramnath N. Kotian
Site No.F-01, Skanda House
Moodabettu, Kulai
Mangalore.
15. Sri Kiran Kumar
S/o Madhava Poojari
Age Major
R/a Jatha Bettu
Thota house
Jokatte Post
Mangalore.
-9-
16. Sri Chandrashekar K
S/o Dasappa Acharya
Aged Major
R/a Kalavar, Kaikamba
MSEZ Colony, Kalakar
Mangalore. ..Respondents
(By Sri K. Krishna, AGA., for R1 to R3;
Sri P.D. Vishwanath, Adv., for R4;
Sri Sachin for M/s. Dharmashree
Associates, Adv., for R5 to R10)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the clause
4.1 of the Annexure to the Government order dated
2.12.2011 in No.RD 116 REH 2011 Bangalore vide
Annexure-A to the extent it gives priority for the KPT trained
candidates in each category of PDF nominees in jobs
provided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group, this day the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioners in WP.Nos.442-443/2012 seek quashing of Clause 15.1 of the Government Order bearing No.RD.116.REH.2011, dated 2.12.2011 vide Annexure-A and for declaration that the said clause is ultra vires of the policy framed by the State
- 10 -
Government for rehabilitation of the displaced persons.
2. WP.Nos.432-436 & 437-441/2012 are filed praying for quashing Clause 4.1 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2011 (vide Annexure-A) to the extent it gives priority for KPT trained candidates in each category of Project Displaced Family nominees in jobs provided by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL.
3. The records reveal that the State Government has framed the policy as per Annexure-B dated 20.6.2007 for providing rehabilitation of the displaced persons in respect of Mangalore Special Economic Zone. The said policy is amended from time to time including the one of 2.12.2011 as per Annexure-A. Under the rehabilitation policy at Annexure-B, a Multi Member Committee is formed as is clear from Clause 20 of the Scheme. The said Clause reveals that the
- 11 -
Committee is formed under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, having representatives of KIADB, Land Requiring Authority, MRPL, concerned District Officers and the representatives of the Project Displaced Families. According to the petitioners, they are also the members of the Rehabilitation Committee. When the work of rehabilitation is going on, the impugned order dated 2.12.2011 vide Annexure-A is issued by the State Government making certain amendments to the policy/Rehabilitation Scheme. The said amendment was to Clause 15 of the original Scheme. The relevant portion of the amendment is found in Clause 15.1 and the same reads thus:-
"15.1 The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District is empowered as the authority for implementation of the employment process including absorption
- 12 -
plan, timelines Methodology etc., as detailed in the Annexure, appended to this Government Order."
From the said amendment, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District is the sole authority empowered to implement the employment process, including the absorption plan, timelines methodology, etc. The petitioners being the members of the Rehabilitation Committee contend that such amendment brought by the State Government is erroneous, inasmuch as the same runs contrary to the main Rehabilitation Scheme, dated 20.6.2007. According to the petitioners, it is not open for the State Government to entrust the implementation of the employment process only to the Deputy Commissioner of the District and it should
- 13 -
have been retained with the Rehabilitation Committee framed under Clause 20 of the Scheme.
4. Before passing the impugned order at Annexure-A, a meeting was conducted on 13.6.2011 (as is clear from Annexure-A itself) under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister for Ports, Inland Water Transport, Fisheries, Ecology and Environment and District In-charge Minister with the representatives of the Project Displaced Families and the representatives from MRPL, OMPL, ISPRI, MSEZI, Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada District and other State Government Officers. In the said meeting, the demands of the Project Displaced Families for providing employment or employment after training was discussed at length. The suggestions offered by the representatives of Project Displaced Families along with representatives of
- 14 -
OMPL, ISPRL, MSEZL and MRPL were considered. Thereafter it was decided that a definite commitment from MSEZL and other Units is required in respect of providing employment to the members of the Project Displaced Families in proportion to the land allotted to each individual unit. In the said meeting, it was further decided that the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District shall be entrusted with the responsibility of implementation of the employment process with the specific direction that he shall oversee and finalize the absorption numbers of employment and also the criteria for selection process by the respective companies. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order is passed amending Clause 15 of the Scheme after consultation with the Project Displaced Families and the representatives of employer companies including the Government Officers. Thus, it cannot be said that the State Government has taken
- 15 -
unilateral decision. Entrustment of the work of the implementation of the employment process to the Deputy Commissioner merely amounts to entrustment of one of the work of the Rehabilitation Committee. This Court does not find any error in entrusting such matter to the Deputy Commissioner, particularly when the said decision is taken by the State Government after consultation with the Project Displaced Families and the employers. Merely because the petitioners are the members of Rehabilitation Committee, they cannot expect the State Government to hear them also while amending the policy/rehabilitation Scheme. Ultimately, it is for the State Government to amend Scheme depending upon the need of affected people. The State Government is the best authority to frame its Scheme. Unless and until the Scheme is arbitrary and irrational, such Scheme of the State Government will not be interfered with by this Court.
- 16 -
5. The entrustment of the work relating to the implementation of employment process to the Deputy Commissioner might have been done with the object of implementation of the project speedier. The Deputy Commissioner is an independent State Government Authority and no motive can be attached to such an authority. If at all anybody is aggrieved by the inaction or overaction on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, it is open for such aggrieved party to take recourse to law to get such defects rectified. The petitioners are stated to be only the members of the Rehabilitation Committee. If at all there should be any grievance, it should be for the Project Displaced Families inasmuch as they are affected persons in the matter. Since the representatives of the Project Displaced Families have themselves agreed for empowering the Deputy Commissioner for implementation of the employment process, including
- 17 -
the absorption, etc., this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
More over, mere making out a legal point may not be sufficient ground for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, particularly relating to policy matters, if such policy is neither arbitrary, irrational or violative of provisions of Constitution of India. Therefore, writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
6. So also this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in WP.No.432- 436 & 437-441/2012.
Under Clause 4.1 of the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 2.12.2011, the methodology is prescribed for selection of the persons who are to be
- 18 -
employed in different categories. The said Clause reads thus:-
"4.1- The current units viz., MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL would provide employment to the no. of PDF's to be absorbed by each of them, based on their (PDF's) qualification and will not insist to appear for selection test. DC, D.K.Dist., Mangalore would finalize the list of PDF nominees in different categories to be provided jobs by MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL, with KPT trained PDF nominees to get first priority in each category."
From the aforementioned amended Clause, it is clear that MRPL, OMPL, ISPRL Committee will provide employment to the Project Displaced Family nominees based on their qualification and they will not insist the candidates to appear for selection test. However, under the said Clause the Deputy Commissioner is
- 19 -
directed to finalize the list of Project Displaced Family trained nominees in different categories to be provided jobs. Such trained candidates will get first priority in the employment. This Court does not find any unreasonableness in the said condition. On the other hand, such a condition is perfectly reasonable and in accordance with law. The companies are not expected to absorb the persons who are untrained. The aforesaid Clause states that the trained persons will get first priority. If such trained candidates are not available, the untrained candidates also may be provided with jobs. Such training will be given by the Deputy Commissioner free of cost depending on the interest of the candidates. If a particular candidate is interested in particular job, training will be conducted only in such avocation.
- 20 -
In the original policy of 20.6.2007 itself (Clause
15), it is clearly mentioned that the persons aged between 18 to 25 years coming from the Project Displaced Families would be given job training depending on their educational qualification. It is needless to observe that such training will be given with free of cost by the State Government. Clause 16 of the original policy also makes it clear that in case if anybody does not want the employment, they would be given amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs in lieu of employment. Thus, the amended policy is perfectly in consonance with the original policy and it does not contravene the original policy at all. On the other hand, it helps to implement the original policy effectively.
In view of the above, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
- 21 -
Accordingly all the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/nk-