Karnataka High Court
Sri Kemparaju S vs The Commissioner on 11 June, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.5917/2018(LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI KEMPARAJU S.,
S/O SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18, BAKSHI GARDEN,
P.K. QUARTERS,
BENGALURU-560053.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE (BBMP)
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGLAURU-560002.
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
WEST RANGE, BBMP,
BBMP,
BENGLAURU-560020.
2
3. THE ENVIRONMENT OFFICER
(GANDHINAGAR)
BBMP, WEST RANGE,
BENGLAURU-560020.
4. SRI V. P. JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O V. N. PRABHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.34, OLD SAVAR LINE,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DR. R. RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;
SRI ABHISHEK. K., FOR SRI DIWAKAR. K., ADV., FOR R4)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE WORK ORDER DATED
20.1.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS
THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF
LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Work Order dated 20.1.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-C.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entrusted with the work of cleaning and transporting the garbage from Gandhinagar Sub-Division, Ward No.120/B of West Range by issuing work order by the 3rd respondent on 16.3.2016 and subsequently by an order dated 3.2.2017 continued the said work order. The said work order dated 3.2.2017 was challenged by the present 4th respondent before this Court in W.P. No.11038/2017 & 13476- 477/2017. This Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 20.6.2017 dismissed the writ petitions. The said order passed by this Court has reached finality. It is further case of the petitioner that when things stood thus, the 3rd respondent without notice and hearing the 4 petitioner, issued the impugned office work order dated 20.1.2018 in favour of the 4th respondent. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the work order issued in favour of the petitioner dated 3.2.2017 was challenged by the 4th respondent before this Court. This Court in W.P. No.11038/2017 and connected matters by its order dated 20.6.2017 dismissed the writ petitions. The said order has reached finality. The 3rd respondent cannot unilaterally cancel the work order issued 5 in favour of the petitioner and the very impugned order is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and liable to be quashed. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri Ramachandra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Abhishek for Sri Diwakar, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the order dated 20.6.2017 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.11038/2017 & 13476-477/2017 is not on merits. Therefore the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent issuing work order in favour of the 4th respondent is just and proper and the same cannot be interfered with. Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was entrusted with the work of cleaning and transporting the garbage 6 from Gandhinagar Sub-Division, Ward NO.120/B of West Range by the 3rd respondent on 16.3.2016 and subsequently by an order dated 3.2.2017 continued the said work order. The same was the subject matter of the writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos.11038/2017 & 13476-477/2017. This Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 20.6.2017 dismissed the writ petitions. The said order passed by this Court continuing the work order issued in favour of the petitioner has reached finality. The material on record clearly depicts that the 3rd respondent before issuing the impugned work order in favour of the 4th respondent on 20.1.2018 has neither issued any notice nor afforded opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also not considered the earlier order passed by the very authority and confirmed by this Court.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.1.2018 is liable to be quashed on the short ground that 7 the same has been passed without giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.1.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-C is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh after giving notice and affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 4th respondent and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-