Sri. Master Rkgmm Mahaswamiji vs Registrar General on 8 January, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Master Rkgmm Mahaswamiji vs Registrar General on 8 January, 2018

Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN


      WRIT PETITION NO. 42650 OF 2016 (S-PRO)


BETWEEN:

SRI. MASTER RKGMM MAHASWAMIJI
S/O LATE R K GANGANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
KODAGU - MADIKERI
KARNATAKA
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M S BHAGWAT, ADV.)

AND

REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. JYOTI M., AGA)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN W.P. 41112/2008 DATED 14.11.2013 AT ANNEX-C
FROM THE RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
RESULTING IN PETITIONER BEING NOT GIVEN THE
                                 -2-



FUNCTIONAL PROMOTION (SELECTION GRADE), DISTRICT
JUDGE; DIRECT RESPONDENT TO DELETE / EXPUNGE THE
OBSERVATIONS ORDER DATED 14.11.2013 IN W.P.41112/2008
WITH REFERENCE TO ORDER DATED 01.08.2008 AT ANNEX-C
IN M.A.12/2006 PASSED BY THE PETITIONER.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:-

(a) Call for records in W.P..No.41112/2008 dated 14.11.2013, marked Annexure 'C', from the respondent and consequently quash the adverse observations made against the petitioner resulting in petitioner being not given the functional promotion (Selection Grade), District Judge;

(b) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to delete/expunge the observations order dated 14.11.2013 in W.P.No. 41112/2008 with reference to order dated 01.08.2008 in M.A.No.12/2006 passed by the petitioner.

-3-

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order dated 14.11.2013, in W.P. No.41112/2008, a learned Single Judge had passed certain strictures against the petitioner. Due to the passing of the strictures, the petitioner was denied the grant of Selection Grade by this Court. By letter dated 20.08.2015, the petitioner was informed that the Full Court, in its meeting held on 17.06.2015, has resolved to deny the Selection Grade, to the petitioner, ostensibly on the ground that certain observations have been made in the order dated 14.11.2013. The petitioner had filed a representation for expunging the strictures recorded in the order dated 14.11.2013. However, by letter dated 08.07.2016, the Registrar General of this Court informed the petitioner that the Committee had considered his representation. However, as he was seeking expunging of strictures passed in a judicial order dated 14.11.2013, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Committee to expunge the same. -4- Therefore, the question of expunging the observations made in a judicial order by the learned Single Judge of this Court, would not even arise. Hence the present petition before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the order dated 14.11.2013.

4. In the order dated 14.11.2013, in para-4, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

"The lower appellate Court without noticing the relevant facts, misguided itself to conclude that the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The order of the Tahsildar suffers from perversity of approach, violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the order of this Court. Sequentially, the order of the lower appellate Court is illegal and unsustainable."

5. A bare perusal of the observation made by the learned Single Judge clearly reveals that the learned Single Judge has not passed any strictures against the -5- petitioner. The learned Single Judge has merely observed that the Lower Appellate Court has not noticed the relevant facts, it has misguided itself to conclude that the plea was liable to be dismissed. Such an observation made by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be strictures being passed against the Lower Appellate Court.

6. Since no strictures has been passed in the order dated 14.11.2013, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is highly misplaced. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

The learned Government Advocate is granted four week's time to file the memo of appearance.

SD/-

JUDGE RD

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court