M Viswanath S/O N. Kenchappa vs The Union Of India on 28 August, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M Viswanath S/O N. Kenchappa vs The Union Of India on 28 August, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED TI~IIS THE 2am DAY OF' AUGUST, 

PRESENT

THE HON'}E3LE MR. PD. DINAKARAN3 CHIEF"JUS'TIC'$3  'E

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUST'lC__E3 V.(E}..S2iBHATH'IET_:  :2

WRIT PETITION NO.1;221uf2Qﬁ3u[(}1'III"?.'EVI\/IS) fg

BETWEEN:

1 M VISWANATH -. VI
S/O N KENCHAPPA  . 
AGED 32 YEARS  L
R/O EHuJAN<;;AI§:AGA.R'.
SANDUR    
BEJLLARY DI.ST'»RE'CT ' , .  
PIN:        PETI'I'1()NE3R

{By Sri : K I3:'vISII'I\'/AI<I;'I§}iI'AII§,»A».A'I3x{:€);jATE ABSENT. I
AND; V V E

 , THE.iuI\II'e:>I\I OF' 'I'I~II)_I_A' .
  BY"IT'"S.. SECRETARY
 »I\/II«I\IISTRY,c3I§"'<:oAI, 85 MINES
' .__DEPARTM_EN'F- _c:")1§«* MINES
SHASTRY BHA;VAN

E\lE,W I)E:,.r~I_Ig,I'2o 001

_ *..TI--IE STATE OF KARNATAKA

"  I3Y'"IT*S SECRETARY
  _DE_PA_RTMEN'¥' OF INDUSTRIES
_  COMMERCE)

 V' VIEKASA SOUDHA, I FL(.)()E-"2

" "'BAN('}AL()RE3--:.">6O 00:

.  :35



 

 IQDPPALITALUK AND DISTRICT...

THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY(E\/IINES)

TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT C)?' INDUSTRIES 82. C(.)I\/{MERGE
VIKASA SOUDHA, I FLOOR.

I3ANCzALORE~560 001

THE DIRECTOR/COMMISSIONER _- 
DEPARTMENT OF MINES 81, GEOLOG"Y'~. 
KHANIJA BHAVAN   3
RACE COURSE ROAD

BAN(}ALORE--E36O 001

M/S J S w STEEL LTD  ' _
REP. BY iT'S MANACEINQ DIREIGTOR 
P.O. VIDYANAGARw58S$._2"?..5 5  I 
TORANAGALLU VILLAGE  '

BELLARY DISTRICT '

M / S v1I;AYAN.AGA_R' Ix/EINERALS "PVT-.LTD..§
REP. BY 1T*_S1VR-!AR;A(--s1N<¢; D1REr;ToR ,
P.O. VIDYATNAQRRRSSS   " 
TORANAQAL'L.{U"U'«I;L{LA£}_E _ * "

BELLA RY DiEST.RicT " "

IVI / S S()"¥.ﬁTH-WEST 'MNNmg...-LTD
REP. BY  TDIRECTOR 

THE ESTATE', 1:1 ELoQR"'

NO. .152 1 , ..D1cK.EN_S(')N ROAD

-  _BA.E$IC'iA;I...(.)F2.E3~56OI  *

 .;;a"R;;D:S:<:"AR FEZRROUS INDUSTRIES LTD
"'F2EE?. B':-'. 1TjS MANAGING DIRECTOR

B'EVINAHAI§J__.I.VILLAGE,
P.()";~._HITN'AL--i583 234
. RESPONDENTS

A «i.'vR{vB:y2..:&3RI[Y'.«.HARIPRASAD ASG EDR R1; SRIBASAVARA KAREDDY '-PGA. I"-'--O'RR2~--R4 SRLUDAYA HOLLA SRCOUNSEL FOR RSWR7, Sfi j-RRAMQD N KATHAVI FOR R8) application for grants of mining lease and in response go the said noxification;

{iii} that several applications were filed _j,-i'ir:luAd'i'n:g--i respondents 53 to 8;

(iv) that as the writ peLi'i;ion:_e'r..-i'haid._ 'fil_e'd application for grant of miiiingleaselon ll}339.2VCOQ<p_rig)r¥ to the notilieatioii, in VlCW of eourt in W.P.No. E8445/2O{ﬁ}'f3"w:._ pawl is matters, petitioner was eVnLitledA__to:"'prelelreiitiiiéliliirievaziment over the aippliceiiirmsiroeeeivelslp in riotificaiion;


{v)   opportunity under
Rule     be delegated to the
Siaie  applieaiion of the

re.~">I3(7I3denLs"-3 ito. .8f--C()'tJlCi"'i1'1{)t be considered in view of of tne"'p'i"oeeedings before this eourig and " ~g(v'i»;_ '£:lCiéit_; "therefore, recommendation made for gronfof minijng': lease in favour of respondents 5 to 8 is liable LIT.) be se: aside.

_ learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. K..S>

4. The petition was resisted by respondents.

53. We have heard the learned CGSC for respondent No.3, learned Government Adv<>eat_e_l'a;o}3eari_ng 'for. if respondents 2 and 4, learned Senior eouvnsel'1lAap_pearitig.,.for respondents 5 and 7' and learned counselvapipearing-llforfrespondent', No.8 and scrutinised the material ona.e»re'eord.

6. Learned counsel for submitted that Central Government grant of mining lease in favour of stand on a better footing than the is justified and does not suf'fc3rl'fror'm .err.or or illegality so as to call for interference irieexercise ofiiwrit'jurisdiction of this Court. 7.1.4ffhe,material_Von record would clearly show that there is n'o._mei'it& in theiélegalt contention regarding the delegation of power raiseio'-byithe 'w:r"it3_pe.t'ivtioner. In this regard it is relevant to ext.raet i'.V_:iRuie 26 oi7.__theV_vt\/ii?Rulers which deals with the power of delegation '~:~,.ijnd.__tli»e reads thus:

jlf.5Delegation of powers: 1) The Central l"Go;vernment may, by notification in the official K} "In my opinion the word, in its general sense and as generally used, does not imply, or point to, a giving up of authority, but rather the conferring of authority upon someone else;'*'.._ As observed by Lord Coleridge, QED 304, the word "delegation" implic-:s"that powers are committed to another p.e.rso:i or' body which are as a implies-.r'tl':at powersiarei committed to another person or i_:iody"which.'~.__ are as a rule, always subject to "resu'rnptior1 "

by the power delegating."-, 'The ,.person delegating does not de':iude "himself, l/l/hartorfs Law Lexicon,VJ9"76 Rep:~'inf'eEdn.i*_aI R316) Delegation impliesvalso the powervvvto withdraw delega.tion«;i ii e---A-sii"i.ndicated it in Wllartorﬁs Law L'exiCo,n,. de{.le'ga"tio"n is-_ a sending away; a putting intoi eoxnmiission; the assignment. of a delzttto ano':her;'v_the1e1ttrusting another, \!.Fltl'l. a Qgenergil ~.pow_oru tojact for the good _()lf tl;o"s_e ,whodeptitev liiriidjli The word "dele;g'at$e§'?.,rrie'ans 'l-i,t~tle"nr_1ore"than an agent. An agent, ejcercises .n'o3 power} of his own but only ppthe "ps.owe'rs"--. of this principal. The

1.;)bserv4a'ti.(:-n,' in HvL{I:«.'.'z__ Case was referred to in Reap Chaitd"cas.e'i}*».__ln general, a delegation of power does not §1';ri_p'l3""iparting with authority.

The'*._delegatir:'.g"body will retain not only , power" to revoke the grant, but also power to act concuvrre_ntly on matters within the area 'oi':delegatedmauthority except insofar as it rnay--.al'1--'eady have become bound by an act i"a.of._i'i:s"~_de,1egate. (See Battelley u.Finsbury " --_ Bo«.r'o:zgh.,; Council.) Corpus Juris Securtdum, Vol.26, "delegate" r _ iighas been described as follows:

\/' 10 "As a noun, a person serzt and empowered to act for another, one cleputed to represent another in 21 more popular but less accurate sense, a regularly selected ITl€II1l§)C'~i~"~.{_)i'i7._i"

a regular party coriverition.

As a verb, in its g€I}ﬁ':1"EE'l~S€f{IS'_€ avnldfaés it general§~\_;-' used, the term does ;_2'1o..t--* irr:.ol}z,l"or" it point to, a giving up of authority';- buti.rléthVer' the conferring authority someonlewels_e, At commorr law,-i'L the_ traiisforvof £':'lLE3;l'1()i"lty by one pe.rS(>ri_ tc3il.>aVno'tlf1'c'ri,'l the act of niaking or conimissiohingvéi oleiegateﬂ --. E;kpfe_ssioﬁ._ 'deielgaﬁcioinfofaiithority of powe;"" is_"a:"3'.Vterrxjx«--._vWhiohf like the word a parting with powers ' who grants the de1e;€%tio_n,' _ba1t»-fpoints rather to the ;co1j1fer1;ing'V'o'i" sin authority to do things v.'::.ii':W!g.iC1'k'. othei*wis'eithat person would have to * ~ .. 'do hirxzsevlf. "

'=.7lb.'lli7_"L:l1i'r:=.'Collins English Dictionary the Word "de'lega'te" has been stated to be 22 person who ieeiiosen to vote or make decisions on behalf A lhkof a group of other people. If you delegate 'iicluties, responsibilities or power to someone, you give them those duties, those \.J-

13 is assumed to extend equally to legisia-.rii;e powers, since it is common practice for ofﬁeials to issue statutory regulations under pol/o.er's. "t.'~i. vested in this ministers (uide Lewisham_;B'<C Robers /(194912 KB 608]"

19.6. Having regard to the princi_:pie'i'!ai'd._down the Hon'ble Supreme Court: ESVHWAR if srrrrrs-or RAJASTHAN, the wgﬁdingsicjrsem-ion"';:{6(2} of the Act and the n_ot:ificati_o.n:"iss'ued blyi"t%'">..e ,State Government deiegatinVg.._.ijAr=>xx'e*r ofieilhfferdiing'opportunity to the applicant': under Rule ll) upon the C0mmissione'r,__and:'Direeter'ofi'Mii1Ves:.lfind Geology, we have no the State Governmeht of the power to consider. .,the iléi§ppli'eationi""an'él to afford an opportunity under Rule 26(1) of the Rulesias the""Cc..ne"missioner and Director of Mines,andi"Geolo;gy."has also been authorised to afforid o_1oportunlityv---under Rule 26(1) of the Rules. if The questions referred to the Bench are ansxwered as follows:

"1. The State Government is not bereft. of power to authorize an authority, or officer subordinate to it to perform the function \)> 'E5 rendered in Writ Appeal No.1095/2008 and connected appeais disposed of on 26.8.2009, the iegai contention raised by the petitiorier in this regard fails.

9.1. With regard to evaiuation of inter se ii applicants, it is settled iaw that the .p'r'oeedu{fe pire'scriibed. in Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Ru1e3E"> ottiie MC_:iR.u.Je.s be strictiy adhered to.

9.2. For better apprecjeiLi.on, .t_oi'r._efer toHiSeictior1 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Ruie 3:3 9.3. Section 1.';

ggecrtiionii'1:iI»;p:iiPréfe}*ential right of certain persons.i--=..L(Ii) Where ..a'-jrecormaissance permit or prospecting hvhas been granted in respect of any perntit or the Zicensee shall have a .pre_fet'en'tiaiTi'right for obtaining a prospecting licence A'or-rniritri§'*Ee_asie,vaids the case may be, in respect of that lcizndiiover other person:

i xxx xxx * {.3} The matters referred to in subwsecti0n,(2) are the.fc.iil0uIing.'-

(a) any special knowledge of, or experience in, reconnaissance operations, prospecting \) 16 operations or mining operations, as the case may be,' possessed by the applicant; ' '

(b) the ﬁnancial resources of the applicarzﬂ 'h

(c) the nature and quality of the staff employed or to be employed'-..Vby.V_"t~he aﬂﬂlicant,' 3

(d) the investment which theizappltcahfproposes'tah .,.a make in the mines and in*t&he-.__industyjy.bg15e:t'*... V' on the minerals; ana'_ ---- A 7

(e) such other matters as may be prescribea'. H (4) xxx xxx.

(5) xxx xxx".

9.4. Rule 35%_bf't';%j1ee'MtC,Ri;Ies eis"f1Vereunder:

"35. P;"efe:re.nxtiaZ' riéfhts'"ofvhygeertain persons.- Where" or::ft,?ft0ré~_persohVs'"have applied for a recahnczi'ssa}tce" a prospecting licence or a mim'hg.__lease :'nVres1;7.ect,t:cfJthe same land, the State GQzgemrh'e':'1tVVshall, jbrthe purpose of subsection (2) secttort u:1"'},.. ____ ..<:or1sider besides the matters clauses (a) to (d) of sub--sectz'oh (3) of "1 end use of the mineral by the 'h A appZica}2':':'5T._ 9.5,jThe'r--*mandatory req'uirement of compliance of Section

7. 14(3)A'(;A.fVVL'h€':MMDR Act and Rule 35 of the MC Ruies has already by this Court in Writ Appeal Nc>.5{)26/2008, disposed \,)> 2D decision not challenging the same, but all that the pctiticmer seeks is, c.ml_\i to give effect. to the p()li,¢};i', decision of the State V\="§'1iCi'1 is admittedly implcmcn%:"eti;. by the State.

19.3. The Apex CourL,.~~~ir1& VIDYARTHI {KUMARD v. s?zjA'r,t;,Ti'o2--'_i AA.UTTAjR__' PRADESI-I [(199131 sec 2123 held that "27. Unlike a private uninformed by reason ;'a"na'l.:l;infliiencecllll"bi) personal predilectiolnsl i i_ matters may result in,_adveiisei«conseqicenceslltofitli alone without a;§-'ec't~inlg pub'lic"*in.te.i"est...:any such act in this field cttlie interest. Every woulcl_Vadi;efse:-hi ajfe hollder piiblic'«.o]}'i_cc by virtue of which he acts on State or public body is ultiinaitelyll acc.oii£niltable to the people in Vitfhom the" isooeretgnty vests. As such, all "so vested in him are meant to be i = public good and promoting the H '-- rhpitbllic' This is equally true of all actions "e«ven..__'in the ﬁeld of contract. Thus, every holder of a_p3ublic office is a trustee whose highest lciupty is to the people of the country. and, 'therefore, every act of the holder of a public cl office, irrespective of the label classifying \ﬁ* 23 of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fairs.' decision--making process. Whether the expecta.t.io'aV:'-i.'n. of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate context is a question of fact" in eacrz'v'--case§"r. ' Whenever the question arises, it are it determined not according to'; the clainiant's perception but in larger go-ii'r'3.lic iriterestwhe're'z'n other more important consizzlerationsiii may outweigh what woi'iid& have been the legitimate expectation' ' the 'krona ﬁde decision of the pub.lic--v.gigvrho?ityreached'. in this manner u:oiiEd,s:i:.satisfy€Lthe iireiaulirernent of non~ arbitrarinieisg jtidvzfciai scrutiny. The doct_rii'_ne"" V olegietiznate .. V exfaectation gets assvgimilaitéci.'i;}7g:he4Lru1e of law and operates in oar' «legal manner and to this e:Ete_ht..'' ' ._ the OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR v.

D£§YA1'JAi.ND-.':rc--portcd in [2008)I0 SCC 1, the Apex isﬂouri f.Alit'3.E3;'i'iI1g with the doctrine of legitimate expecliation iolbsjerved that":

x j "I OBI The concept of "due process of law"

,. V. has played a major role in the development of i' administrative law. It ensures fairness in 'public administration. The administrative authorities who are entrusted with the task of \_/'S 25 Civil Service. In that case the Government tried to forbid trade unionism among civil service. For this, the Civil:

Service Order in the 1982 Council was issued,__llThe'l'~i. Court of Appeal declared that the Minister is unlawfully in abridging the fundamental-"rig-h.tf..of~V:a'--A citizen. to become a member of the trade 'tuniion,_ The House of Lords approved the judgmentlof the' Court; I Appeal and held that such arigght could notl'l9ei«t_a<.-'C.eri away without consulting the civil ~s_erv_ant ¢om§ériieci.;

105. In India, the havevgradulally recognised that while administering the ithe__l_l.State, the Government .;1';<;::¢f1'v..its expected to honour thehi ljstatemerzltsll treat the citizens The theory of legitimaltelieigocctatihn firstlfounldlitslmention in Navjyoti Coop. Group Society pg Union of India. In that case theafght of a society for right to priority in the vmvatterhakf registratlion was recognised in the

- V. folloigvirig' uiordsi '{scc.;;p, 494-95, paras 15- .2 5;

r. the aforesaid facts, the Group " Seci'eties were entitled to 'legitimate lexpectat'ioln' of following consistent past practice in thellmatter of allotment, even though they may j'te_: have any legal right in private law to receive lsuich treatment. The existence of 'legitimate I expectation' may have a number of different

xi)' 26 consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding' l reason ofpublic policy to justify its doing so. Inmci case of 'legitimate expectation' J the autho'iity.:y:i"'.ll""

proposes to defeat a persons 'l€.gtfif'T3t;7:l'E€?i"

expectation' it should aﬂord himjan opportunity .V i make representations in the matter. 1n.'_-.th*is 2 it connection reference may_'"b.e made. to.' t"hie'*~ discussions on 'legitimate expectation' at of Vol. 1(1) ofHalsburyilstaufsnlofiEnglaln_d, (reissue). We may also ,_refe.»: itoia of the House of Lords in C:ourici'l"&ofC'i'uiZlSeruiceiilnions U. Ministef._.foi%;i}¢'iVL.*iltlﬁeruice. .iit.[has'v--beien held in the said de,c'ision?._that[ffan"*aggrieuecl person was entitled io"ji;_di'ciiz.t reyiew if he could show that a decision. of theipul9li.cl"auj:.hority aﬂected him of some hlenefit or. ad.i2ati_t.age which in the past he been "'permitte=:l to enjoy and which he "legit7i"mat'ely expected to be permitted to continue V = "t'ogAenfoy"'~either until he was given reasons for ii u,rithdra_1--ua'l;.i'and the opportunity to comment on "such 'reasons.

16. It may be indicated here that the V"-cioctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act \.9 27 fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation", 4' reasonable opportunities to make l'€pf€S€?"tIClli'-Ol'1':' by the parties likely to be affected by any.cha_rige of consistent past policy, come We hla_ve"no.t'-_ V been shown any compelling 'reasons itcrilcen , "

into consideration the Government to make ct departurellfrofrnthei existing policy of ailotmenlt 'withireference to seniority in registlrationi__t}_gv ilnttrodiicing a )) new guideline. .

19.6. 'r.té.ifj,-A imsi AND STEEL co. LTn'."i+; 'Ul$liIOIll::f§IJF iaie1A sé'po--r£ee in [1996)9 sec 709, aplproving tll'1£*':l:"J.ig:(13l\Y of__tl'i--eCcimmittee appointed by the Centréil._gC}over'nrrieAnt_lfhzirslnant to the directions to the High Cot;1'rt_of_C:ris'sa,"'consisting of senior officers {hes _l\/linistryi l'(:)l'~l.V.i.1l!'1f3S, the Endian Bureau of Mines e.n'd..,ll'ie_viA(§eo§ogica.l Survey of India, that the National lliizfiirierelil been tabled before both the Houses oflllatrlliament, is a guiding factor in the 'V dCCiSit}?}~i'n&1king process of the Government and, both . the Néx'ti<)nal Mineral Policy as well as the industrial l l.'Po'ltic_yi.'of the State of Orisse, captive mining has been l "rei_;ognized as a fundamental guideline in determining 'the criteria for granting mining lease, held that the K?» 28 Committee made an estimate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing hefoure__iiﬁ_ it, after coming to the conclusion that mining is a fundamental guideline to be lgept mind while renewing the lease.

20. ln that View of the matter,:'~:¢wC:;"Cie'inot.S6'?i.e:rl}'vi"~i error or illegality on the part_ of t'b_e" peti1;Vi»onjezj in approaching this court for seekiizrgiappropriaiterarii.=reci;ion to both Central and State Goxfe-rn:rnen't.._to proce.ss./the applications in acc()rdane:C decision taken by them, the petitio'neri..i'_s eintit.1edi.:to_eiseek such relief based on legitimate§;expec.tation.'_*.._V ' 2}. that the petitioner is bona-ﬁ»d'3=illV'r?§il3l5'i9.E3Ch'§j1i'%--:iit3t'l1S'----»{l_r:'i.1rt with the above public inter_estiiiitigation'2.layj__ng his hands on the very National Mineral'Po'liAcy,:i'2{iO6V~'and 2008 as well as the Karnataka l\'/ii--ner~*alV Polic_y:,'«2~t)O8, which itself provide for V promxo_i;ingeA.and encouraging scientific mining methods by emplio'yinigi'i'advanced mining equipment and machineries i'wiiti"s 'sl~;ill.r::_dl .V4a:id"-.non~skil1ed manpower and actively enC--ot1r.agin'g--'i_'v.ailt1e addition which should go hand~in« hand""«with"the rowth of the mineral sector a stand-

-w._a~3.one iiidtistrial activity and to give priority to the ~a_'pplit:"a.nts, who propose to establish industries based on fxailusei addition making it clear that mining a stand« '"~..al._0..%1e industry needs to be encouraged as it provides \) 29 large scale employment; new mineral based industries should be up to match the available raw matei'ia}'--.. resources; existing and new industries should facilities to bring the available raw materials required specifications by processes like pelletisation and sintering; and the'se»..industrie"sf.willﬁx generate more employment and', sgfjawn *..aL1Xi'liaiy"=.___ industries.

22.1. We are, thereforefsatisfiedll (illgthe proposed end use of the'llr'n..i«_ner_alls by;the'~appiicant;'"and

(ii) the captive eonsurnptiori var1ueu'additi()n of minerals, shouldabe thr:'"'p.ri'me'--criteria"for granting mining lease, because the steel 'plari--tsrr.r;.e.ming up in a relatively ui:'dei*feleV'elQpe'ci'~.,,,?1r::a.s, twill' ensure further employrnelntlgeneration iln~.elst,abli_s"nrnlent of roads, ports, transp()rtati'eii, V railway infrastructure, supply chain, and allied industries such as power plants,_:lslag'eemen.t plants, ancillary units, etc., V ,lVeadi,_ifigl§;. imp'roir._<:d«t infrastructure and overall d,eVel,oprr_1ler.;toil"-..{he lifestyle of the public at large of the it , re on?' .

{emphasis supplied} ll lri .the instant case, so far as the inter se merits of the l=.v§'r-itlpetitiolrier and respondents S to 8 are concerned, respondent is alreacrly having an integrated steel plant and mining lease is \r'~ 30 granted for captive use having regard to the priority of captive mining in National and State Level Mining Policy; Respondent No.6-M/s.Vijayanagar Minerals Pvt. Ltd, has entered into an agreement with M/s. Mines and Minerais Limited, a (}overnn1ent_ of Karnataka undertaking, {or supply of iron ore to the said'eo.rn.par.iy;" _ Respondent No.7~M/s.Southwest Mining C<)mpan.yi§_Lt*d:.,«. iiasw entered into an agreement with l\/E/s. i,JSWi.TSj:eieil captive use and also furnished a supportirig document. for having entered into said agreement, so that, use Wi~E.l_ b'e*not'f:or export and it is for value addition';.,_Respondent' iiN().8--l\/I/s. Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., has got -an rjideist _pi:igiiron_'i'grey iron plant and prc)duees"highA for automobile industry and the firrni'-is' facilities to utilise fines, and therefore, for grant of mining lease in favour as well. However, so far petitioner is ieo'r1ee"rn.ed,.,4°the.xi'petitioner is an individual and he made appiieateion' for g'raf_nt5'of mining lease to an extent of 200 acres in "e._Donirz1aiai range and it is stated in column 18 of the application ,1 wiil be used within the Country and would be ii'_r~supi_;:»lie'd to the steei industries in India and therefore, respondents W

-4I.ridexi:'.Yes/NO' ii 31 5 to 8 apparentiy stand on a better footing than the writ petitioner, and a roving enquiry Cannot be made into the merits of Ct'-';€VifK1"-€)'f;'1I.i'1f3 claims in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofindia. * 9.9. For the reasons stated supra:":and_"agjpljfitng theiirréii't-iigihéf decision rendered by this Court in W_ri':._VAppeia.1 iNoV.5Gi_?ii€>i;i:.2O.Q8,-viWritr L' Petition N0.5022/2009 referred to areisatisfiegji that the recommendation in favour of1*e,e:iponde1;its ibwtoi justified.

10. ACc0rding1y,._'V.'e hoidi is i'i1'I1€I'1't in the writ petition and the sar:7te5i.s ;'disrﬁiiss.eid§.' N:oi"cos§_s. '! Se/»~ _§ Chief Iusttce sd/-

'JUDGE / Web_ HQ:«,t:_bYe_s/No }zS'v?_**"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court