Karnataka High Court
G Madhegowda S/O. Late Puttegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2009
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13*" DAY OF JULY 2oo_9..VRO»Y,j'O.._
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, cr:1E'F--Yiuj1*ic--E Q"
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.3U'STI§ZE \};G." :3ABH:Ai%i.IT_H :1
WP. NO.11641/2008.{G!VE--RE.S-«-PIE) 7: -
W.P. N .10«1F2 100280 GM'-R'ES--PIL)
"BETWEEN: _ ' '
G MADi--1lEG%;Q_\fv'DA«_ _ ._
s/o LATE"PUT£'EG'Q'W[3A.:.Y~
AG.ED"~AE39~1.+lT80'YE0I1'~'RS.___
ZEX-"ME..¥¥i.BERi:'}OF PARLIAM'E'N'T
'AND'EX'-'§'t2I~NIST'EvR}"v---__ A
R/A A.G.- BANDIG.OwL2~A LAYOUT,
R/AT MANDY'Ajc:1'Y
__MAN DYA DVISTRICT.
YYYYY ~ * PETITIONER
A.Sfr*vé:_;:" 'SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M/s.
As;9,s.'OAssO<;1YATEs, ADvs., )
:
A Y. _1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
0' BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -- 560001.
SECRETARY .
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
RASHOTHANA BUILDING ;
II FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD 0
BANGALORE - 560001,: _ *
D c THAMMANNA ~
S/O. LATE cHIKKAMARI:GOwDA_
AGED 65 YEARS~._ 5 _ V.
EX--MLA, 24/21, IMATINT,R*OAD'--.'j_ ,
II STAGE,,vIJAYA,N_AG,AR_, *
BANGALORE - 40 A
M[T'H'E EN *§:DO*,~ .R1ADBj-~-
Li», R APPAJE A. "
MAJOR BYAGE , " "
FATHER' S NA:-A_E'~N~OT KNOWN TO
g " RETITIO_N_E'R
' C/O..,_KARN"ATA--!<A INDUSTRIAL AREAS
i)EV_E'LOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, II FLOOR,
_ "¥\lRLi,'PA'l'HUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
"[TH,E DO, KIADB]
R NAGENDRA
~ MAJOR BY AGE
FATHER' S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER,
A C/O KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, II FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
[THE THEN DDO AND DO, KIADB]
10
GANGADHAR
MAJOR BY AGE
C/O KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, II I=LOOR,_,..._"~AT}7,j'gf"«.V
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560_00'1;;;--A, "
[THE THEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANT - II"-_ 0'
& DDO (KIADB) ]
JANARDHAN RAO
MAJOR BY AGE _
FATHER' S NAME NOT'KN.OWN'TO ,
PETITIONER,
C/O KARNATAKA INDUSTR-IAL..AREAS._ .
DEvELOPMENTB'O.ARD=,"KI'ADB,"11 FLOOR,
NRU PATHUNGA RO"A_D,: BANGA.LO,R E - 560001.
VEERAPPA -_
MAJOR~vB"Y,A'GE
FATHER' S'jNAME NOT K.N0«\Nr~s TO
PETfTIQNER,'--~._ ,
C/O i<AR'N'.A,TAIrA'vINDUSTRIAL AREAS
;DEvE.L.ORME:NT BOARD, RIADB, 11 FLOOR,
NRUP,AT'Bu.NGA"ROAD, BAN--GALORE - 560001.
CHAANDRASH"'IEVK.A'FiAAi5'RA
1 , MAJOR 'BY,VA_GE~._
'FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
IO RET1TION--E~'
C/OKARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
. :'D,_EVE'LOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, II FLOOR,
I¢R_LJRAj*F:uNGA ROAD, BANGALORE --- 560001.
CHE'I;HAN ANAN0
~ MAIOR BY AGE
FATHER' S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER,
C/O KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KIADB, II FLOOR,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
RESPONDENTS
-4-
(By SMT. NILOUFER AKBER, AGA., FOR R1 AND R2 SRI BASAVARA3 V SABARAD, ADV., FOR R3 SR1 H.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RELLBEN JACOB, ADV., FOR R4 SR1 P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s¢..P}Sfi.'S._V' RAJAGOPAL ASSTS., ADV., FOR R5 AND R6 R11) W.P. NO.10162/2008 £'3?.3'.V§'§€":'.I A 1 G MADEGOWDA .
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, V' Ex--MEMBER OF :PARLIAiVi'E»!\fT, R/AT MANDYAC-1T5', ;
MANDYA DISTRICT,"
PETITIONER (By SkiIS.'P;iSHAI§;KAR,.SENICDRCIOUNSEL FOR SMT. MAMATHA Kui;T:.ARTAI:,'««ATO\1M.,-- ) TETESVAAGOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA _f;u _ "BY'I.TS._TCHIEF SECRETARY, ' A *v1'O.,HANA SOUDHA, SANSALORE 1.
THE SECRETARY .
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, MYSTIC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 1.
SR1 JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL _ -9-
2) to direct respondents 1 and 2 to hand over the case to CBI in regard to payment of exaggerated amounts of compensation as well as market value for none"-..gg existing trees, plants, timber, malkies stated"~tofg--«.Vg:"'._ be existing on the acquired land refe.rifed"'tog:-.:__j' above. ' hi ill
3) to grant such interest ofjustice and equit§.«V__"
The averments made in thi.svg""petitio'n__are:sirni;l'ari~~to the"
averments made in _..W.P. VAi.!\lo'."1Oi-»62/20138'...stating the inactio'n%'or'i ofre'spon'de'nts 1 to 3 to take steps on the basigsllof the CAG regarding functioning of the l<':Aoa;--. _ X J .::R.espondent No.4 in W.P. No.11641/2008 has file--ci;lStaat_en'ie:n't'.of Objections averring that the petition is poiitica-ily rnotivated. The Petitioner is an active politician '.in:.__the"'.State of Karnataka and has been contesting ' Vel"ec'tions from the Mandya District. In the election held in it " "May 2008 for the Maddur Assembly Constituency, the son Kin -19- of the petitioner had contested against the fourth respondent. The averments made in paras 1 and 3 of the writ petition regarding description of the petitioner is made only for the purpose of maintaining the present"-ifiubiic Interest Litigation petitions. It is averre.d."'Ath§.r..:' petitioner has aiready filed W.P_._,"No.10162/2D'Q3"':ai'i.d has aiso iodged a complaint before then 4.1 It is further averred that the offi.C1e:of 'C2A'G'g is a constitutionai office and 'the"imain function andffduty of the said office is to'~~audi_tHthei,act-auntsAof"the Union Goveiinm_e--nt,VV'anti_,jSta'te:"'G_overnments. The CAG is aiso empowere_d- toV"~au'dit.--th'e4'accounts- of bodies, authorities ancfgf 'erit.erpriseis_Vto which its audit jurisdiction is exercised. Thie _sai.d.,"'duties and powers are governed by the "'.C'ornfptro'i~i.e__rwAV.f'a:i'd Auditor Generai's (Duties, Powers and Co'ndit--i'ons:"'of Service) Act, 1971. In pursuance of the powers" under Section 23 of the said Act, the Reguiations "Audit and Accounts, 2007 have been framed by the " -"CAG, which governs inter-alia, the scope and extent of audit, audit reports and submission of the same to the U -12- prescribed in the Regulations and as on 30.11.2008, the matter in respect of para 6.3 of the CAG repo.rt._:for'-'the year 2000-2001 is still pending consideration-iaéndl' be discussed by the Public Accounts__Conin*iitte_e..'V""In' of the said aspect of the matter, "~p:r'oceduré¥1.ils prescribed and contemp|ated'«-.in respect _o'f;:tnievi-vaforesaid.1"
aspects, it is not proper for___thAe:__petitioner.to bypass the same and seek for a "dii'e.ct"ionflaiyt of this Court. The said procedzire is:.a'ire--afciy' and the matter is Committee and at this jVu_n_ct'urg=_::,:-.V:'}_,l:F 'appropriate to initiate parallel -0 instance of the petitioner. Further, i3eru'sa'l'..Voi":lithe"regulations wouid demonstrate thegfact that'it..V_Vislegislature of a State which has to take 'a.ctioniorithe report of the CAG and it is well settled law .tha_t.lA mandamus can be issued against the iegislai:u're;i"' Hence, the Writ Petition is iiabie to be ..dis__missed.
5. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and :We'I:;i"i-i4A()si:f':Y:es/'i\Eéo M ' » suiha.
§ ~16» Under the circumstances, it is clear that apart from aiiowing the iaw to take its own course in accordance with the procedure to be foiiowed in respect of the obserikations made by the CAG in his report, the writ pet_itioh_erc_'_.i.é? entitled to any specific relief in these Writ Accordingly, the Writ_P_etitEohs:"are dis:;o's'ed orwiith-i.ep the above said observationsf'-».2" . H " .Ch1@-1' Justice E«ride_}§.-:'..Yes/No