Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) Before proceeding further, it is useful to find out the circumstances and basis on which the matter was agitated.

One Shri S.D. Bandi filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 324 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of the appeal filed by the respondents herein granted time to the appellant herein to vacate the government quarter by 30.04.2004. The appellant was working as a Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), Mysore Division at Mysore. By order dated 31.05.1992, he was transferred to the Mangalore Division and for joining the place of duty, he was relieved from the duty of Mysore Division on 12.06.1997. Challenging the order of transfer, the appellant herein filed Reference No.21 of 1997 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore. At the same time, he did join the place of posting at Mangalore but did not vacate the quarter. On 19.07.1999, the competent officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 passed an order of eviction against the appellant in KPP No.3 of 1998. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was dismissed and the order of eviction was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 41762 of 2001 before the High Court of Karnataka which was allowed on 10.12.2001. In the meantime, on 03.07.2000, the Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of transfer and ordered the appellant to be restored to his original place of work at Mysore. Against the said order, the Corporation filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3249 of 2001 in which rule nisi was issued and the award of the Industrial Tribunal was stayed. Thereafter, the Corporation preferred Writ Appeal being No. 324 of 2002 against the order dated 10.12.2001 in W.P. No. 41762 of 2001 which was allowed by impugned order dated 25.03.2004 and the appellant herein was also directed to vacate the quarter by 30.04.2004. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court by way of special leave.

(b) Though this Court in one of its Orders in these proceedings had sought the opinion of the other States as to whether they would like to make amendments on similar lines vide Orders dated 24.07.2007 and 19.09.2007, The response of the various States was as under:-

      a)    Union of India said ‘No’
      b)    The Government of Bihar said ‘No’
      c)    The Government of Haryana said they would follow if the Union of
           India amends.
      d)     The  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  said  the  matter  was   under
           consideration.
      e)    The State of Madhya Pradesh said that it  will  do  so  if  need
           arises.
      f)    The State of Karnataka said that it was drafting rules for  this
           purpose.
      g)     The  State  of  Maharashtra  said  that  it  has  approved  the
           amendment.
      h)    The State of Uttarakhand said that  the  proposal  is  sent  for
           amendment.
      i)    The State of Nagaland said that  it  will  take  steps  for  the
           amendment.
      j)    The State of Sikkim said ‘No’
      k)    The State of Mizoram said that it will bring about the amendment
           if the Supreme Court directs.
      l)    The State of Manipur said that it had amended and sent it to the
           Union of India for approval.
      m)    The Union Territory of Chandigarh welcomed the amendment but was
           bound to follow the Union of India.