-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.6842-6880/2010 (S-KAT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.15002/2011 & 21131-21146/2011,16948-16995/2010, 8215/2010, 8715/2010 & 8906/2010, 10106/2010 & 12726- 12763/2010, 17294-17327/2010, 17481/2010 & 17485-17490/2010 & 17723-17727/2010, 19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011, 24525/2010, 41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011, 908-911/2011, 103593/2014 & 103620- 103657/2014 (S-KAT) IN WP Nos.6842-6880/2010 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. MAHESH A C S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED 35 YEARS, NO.28/2, ARALAGUPPE VITULAPURA POST, K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 2. ARUN PATIL S/O SURENDRA S PATIL DELETED V/O DTD. AGED 39 YEARS 05.03.2010 3. SURESH C S/O CHANNAPPA POOJAR AGED 35 YEARS, KURUBARABEEDI JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI 4. SHIVANANJEGOWDA B N S/O NANJEGOWDA B C AGED 32 YEARS, NO.37, M.E.S.ROAD OPP:MOTHER THERESA SCHOOL MUTHYALAMMA NAGARA JALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 054 R
Transcript
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.6842-6880/2010 (S-KAT) C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos.15002/2011 &
21131-21146/2011,16948-16995/2010, 8215/2010,
8715/2010 & 8906/2010, 10106/2010 & 12726-
12763/2010, 17294-17327/2010, 17481/2010 &
17485-17490/2010 & 17723-17727/2010,
19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011, 24525/2010,
41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011,
908-911/2011, 103593/2014 & 103620-
103657/2014 (S-KAT) IN WP Nos.6842-6880/2010 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. MAHESH A C S/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED 35 YEARS, NO.28/2, ARALAGUPPE
VITULAPURA POST, K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT
2. ARUN PATIL S/O SURENDRA S PATIL DELETED V/O DTD. AGED 39 YEARS 05.03.2010
3. SURESH C S/O CHANNAPPA POOJAR
AGED 35 YEARS, KURUBARABEEDI
JANNAPURA, BHADRAVATHI 4. SHIVANANJEGOWDA B N
S/O NANJEGOWDA B C AGED 32 YEARS, NO.37, M.E.S.ROAD OPP:MOTHER THERESA SCHOOL
33. SRI SRINIVAS MURTHY G N S/O G P NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A DALASANUR POST AND VILLAGE SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT
34. SRI PUTTASWAMY R AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A AND VILLAGE RAYASAMUDRA
POST RAYASAMUDRA, K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT
35. SRI SUBHASH M S AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO.216, 1ST CROSS
4TH MAIN, H BLOCK, R.K.NAGAR, MYSORE
-7-
36. SRI RAGHAVENDRA A R
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO.1914, 3RD CROSS 14TH MAIN, II STAGE, MYSORE
37. SRI RANGANATH S/O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA MADIKEHALLI POST, KOTTAGERE KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
38. SRI BASAVARAJU K C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR K L
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A BASAVAKRUPA
NO.22, OPP:UCO BANK, BATAWADI, TUMKUR 39. SMT. VIDYA N D/O L NARASIMHAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A HAMSA NILAYA BEHIND DEEPAK CABLES 10TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, TUMKUR
40. SRI P PRADEEP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.258, NEAR KALABYRAVESHWARA TEMPLE THIMMANAHALLI, C.N.HALLI, TUMKUR
41. SRI PRAKASH T M S/O MALATHESAIAH T N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A THOSRESURAGONDANAHALLI HULIYUR POST AND HOBLI
42. SRI ANAND REDDY S/O R. NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RAJU NILAYA, KVOR COLONY HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI BELLARY DISTRICT
(IMPLEADED V/O DTD.17.6.2010) ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE AS SPL. COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI J PRASHANTH FOR M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES,
ADVOCATES FOR R3, R8-R10, R13, R15, R18, R20, R21, R23, R24, R25 & R27 – R31, 33-41; SRI S M BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R14, R16, R17,R19 & R22; SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHAN &
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R6, R7 & R26; SRI H KANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R12;
-8-
SRI V LAKSHMINARAYAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI L. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R42;
SRI D N NANJUNDAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR NITYANAND, ADVOCATES FOR R11 & R32)
WRIT PETITION Nos.6842-6880/2010 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO, CONNECTED WITH
CONCERNING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEX-A DTD. 2.3.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN A.NO.1212-1250/2010, PERUSE THE SAME AND
DECLARE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AND THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC.,
IN WP Nos.15002/2011 &
21131-21146/2011 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN: MR KAMBLE SATISHKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SHANKAR R/AT NAGARAL, CHIKKODI TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT 591 247 ... PETITIONER
(By SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)
AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT MULTI-STORIED BUILDINGS DR AMBEKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001
(REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY) 2. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PARK HOUSE BANGALORE 560 001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001 4. MR. H.G.SOMASHEKARA, S/O H.A.GANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
-9-
BEHIND T.B.SAKREPATNA KADUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
5. MR. MARILINGAPPA K S/O NINGAPPA K.L
AGED 34 YEARS RAMAPURA POST, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY
6. MR. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE K.M.SHIVARAM
AGED 37 YEARS DOOR NO.97, F KOLIDARA ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE
7. MR. VEERABHADRAPPA HARIHAR AGED 35 YEARS, S/O MR. GURUSHANTHAPPA
3247, VEERESHKRUPA, 11TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, MC.C. B BLOKC DAVANAGERE
8. MR. KUMARA H.M
S/O SRI MALIRANGAIAH AGED 38 YEARS NO.18/4(1), SUDARSHAN BADAVANE
MADIKERI 9. MR. K. YOGENDRA
AGED 31 YEARS S/O MR. KRISHNAPPA NO.16, ESHWAR RAO COMPOUND
8TH MAIN, T. DASARAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE
10. MR. ANANDA KUMAR B.G AGED 30 YEARS S/O MR. GOVINDAPPA
NO.64, 1ST MAIN ROAD PARVITHIPURAM, BANGALORE
11. MR. HAREESH B K AGED 30 YEARS S/O C. KODANDARAM
NO.29, 5TH CROSS, 6TH A MAIN J.P.NAGAR, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE
-10-
12. S.G.JAMALUDHEEN S/O S.S GHAZNAVI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22/1, 6TH CROSS REHMAT NAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE – 560 032 13. H.S.HIREMATH
SON OF S.S.SEETHARAMU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.ES 720
III MAIN ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN – 573 201
14. T.H.MAHESH KUMAR S/O T.G.HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.143, ‘ANNAPOORNESHWARI’ 2ND CROSS, 5TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR EAST SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD
TUMKUR
15. V. RAVI, S/O N VEERBHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.55, 4TH CROSS, LINK ROAD
MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003
16. T. MURALIDHARA S/O C THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
(By SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR
R1 & R3; SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R6; SRI H SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI K.C.SHANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7- R10, R13-R14 R-120 - R123; SRI K.SUBBARAO, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI SATHEESHA K.N, ADVOCATE FOR R12 & R15;
SRI J PRASHANTH FOR M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R5,18,24,30,51,52,55,60,64, 67 TO 69, 73 TO
-27-
78, 80,82,83,85,91 TO 92, 95 TO 96, 100, 101, 103 TO 106, 108, 110, 112 & 113;
SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA & SRI S CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R20,25,26,28,32,34,36,37,38,40 TO 44, 46-50, 53,54, R56 TO
59, 62, 63,65 TO 72, 79, 81, 84, 86-90, 97, 99,102,107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 124, 125; SRI RAVI G SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R21,31,35,126 TO 128; SRI ABHINAV FOR
M/S KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR R22,23,29,61; SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR NITYANANDA V NAYAK, ADVOCATES FOR R 136,137,140,141,142,143,144, 146;
SRI K. DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI K.A.CHANDRASHEKAR & K A NAGESHA, ADVOCATES FOR R129;
SRI SRIDHAR C.K, ADVOCATE FOR R133, 145; SRI G.M.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R131; R 17, 27, 33, 39, 45,93,94,98,117,132,134 SERVED;
UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPLICATION NO.5127/09, & APPLICATION NO.5078 & 5079/09 DT.10.6.2010 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANN-A1, DISPOSED AS HAVING INFRUCTUOUS, IN VIEW OF THE
DISPOSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197 TO 202/2007 DT.25TH MAY 2010 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANN-A2 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NOS.182 TO 185, 187, 197 TO 202/2007 DT.25.5.10 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANN-A2 AND ETC.
IN WP Nos.16948-16995/2010 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K V NAGARAJU
S/O SRI VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AT RTO BANGALORE CENTRAL, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE 2. SRI H.R. PRAKASH
SO SRI H.M. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AT RTO BANGALORE CENTRAL, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
-28-
3. SRI C. SUNIL S/O SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AT RTO
BANGALORE WEST, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE
4. SRI PRABHAKAR S/O SRI SHARANAPPA CHAWHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AT RTO
BANGALORE EAST, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE
5. MR. ASHFAN B.S. S/O MR. SHAMSUDDIN B.A. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RTO- BANGALORE EAST
INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE
6. SRI B.S. NANDEESHA S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE EAST INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE 7. SRI RAJESH S.P.
S/O SRI R. PARASHIVA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AT RTO, BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE
8. SRI T.S. GIRIDHAR S/O SRI T. SEETHARAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE SOUTH JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE
9. SRI MALLIKARJUNA S/O SRI KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE SOUTH JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE
10. SRI C.S. SATISH S/O SRI SANNANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE CENTRAL,
KORAMANGALA BANGALORE
-29-
11. MR. SURESH
S/O SRI BASAPPA KAJUGAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE CENTRAL
KORAMANGALA BANGALORE
12. SRI MAHESH C MATTAPATHI C/O SRI C.B. MATTAPATHI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE CENTRAL KORAMANGALA BANGALORE
13. SRI PRASHANTH MARALINGANNAVAR
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA MARALINGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE WEST RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
14. SRI SIDDALINGESH BELAD
S/O SRI D.V. BELAD AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 15. SMT. VINAY CHOUDHARI K
W/O SRI MANOJ M NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 16. SRI KESHAVAPPA N
S/O SRI B. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 17. SRI MARUTHI NAIK
S/O SRI DATTATHRAYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 18. SRI JAVARAIAH K
S/O SRI KARAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
-30-
WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
19. MR. ABDUL NASEEM
S/O MR. ABDUL MAJEED
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
20. SRI BALACHANDRA THODALABAGI
S/O SRI H.S. THODALABAGI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
21. SRI PUTTASWAMY H.N.
S/O SRI NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE WEST RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE
22. SRI PRABHAKAR N S/O SRI M. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE EAST INDIRANAGAR
23. SRI. K.G. RAMASWAMY S/O SRI. R. GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO-BANGALORE EAST INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.
24. SRI. N. PRABHU S/O SRI. NANJUNDAIAH M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE EAST INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE
25. SRI. SHARANAIAH S/O SRI. RAMAIAH VIBHUTHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE
26. SRI. RAMACHANDRA K.P. S/O SRI. K.M. PUTTAIAH
-31-
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE 27. SRI ARUN FAKIRAPPA KATTIMANI
S/O SRI. FAKIRAPPA KATTIMANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE 28. SRI. RAVIRAJ PAWAR
S/O SRI. J.K. PAWAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE 29. MR. SAIFUDDIN KHAN
S/O MR. FASIUDDIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS WORKING AT RTO- BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE
30. SRI. VISHWAJET MALAJURE S/O SRI. ARUN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH
YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE 31. SRI. MAHANTHESH
S/O SRI. VENKANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS WORKING AT RTO - BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE – 560 010 ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI H SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RANGANATH S JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, 6-9, 11-13, 15; SRI MADHUSUDHAN R. NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3
SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI V LAKSHMINARAYAN, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI L. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT IN IA 1/2014
AND IA II/2014; R5, R10, R14 –SERVED)
W.P. Nos.16948-16995/2010 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 25.05.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
-36-
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION Nos. 182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197 TO 202 OF 2007 VIDE ANNEX-S AND ETC.
IN WP No.8215/2010 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAYARAM K H S/O SRI K P HANUMANTHEGOWDA AGED 34 YEARS
R/O JAI HANUMAN NILAYA INDIRANAGAR, ARSIKERE ROAD HASSAN ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI K.C.SHANTHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT IN KARNATAKA 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001
3. SRI B P NAVEEN S/O MR PUTTASWAMI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O NO.276/141, 9TH MAIN PIPELINE, VIJAYNAGAR BANGALORE 560 040
4. SRI HUSSAIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR BIG WATER TANK BAGALKOT 587 101
-37-
5. SRI MALLESHAPPA P SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.32, NEAR KARNATAKA SEEDS CORPORATION 22ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR
VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT 6. SRI VINAY KUMAR
S/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA BAJANTHRI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A PAVAN NILAYA
SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT GADDANAKERI BAGALKOT DISTRICT
7. SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR KOMPI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A NO.77, WARD NO.1 HIREHADAGALLI BELLARY DISTRICT
8. SMT. KAVITHA T N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO.103, 2ND FLOOR 2ND CROSS, RAILWAY COLONY
40. SRI P PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A NO.258, NEAR KALABYRAVESHWARA TEMPLE
THIMMANAHALLI, C.N.HALLI TUMKUR
41. SRI PRAKASH T M S/O MALATHESAIAH T N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A THOSRESURAGONDANAHALLI
HULIYUR POST AND HOBLI ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN R NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI D.RAMDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3,4,6,7,9-13,15, 22,23,25-27,
-42-
R29-R33 & R35-R41; SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI NITYANANDA V NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R28;
SRI J PRASHANTH FOR M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R-8, 14, 16-21,24,34)
W.P.No.8215/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO CONNECTED WITH AND CONCERNING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEX-A DTD. 2.3.10 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN A.NO.1212-1250/2010, PERUSE THE SAME AND DECLARE AND
QUASH THE SAID ORDER AND THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC.,
IN WP Nos.8715/2010 & 8906/2010 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN: SRI B A NAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI B ANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS UN-EMPLOYED YOUTH AND
R/AT DOOR NO. 1826, "LAKSHMI NILAYA" 50 FT. ROAD, 14TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE KUMARA SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE-78 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
5TH FLOOR, MULTI STORIED BUILDINGS
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001
4. SRI. RAVISHANKAR NAGATHAN S/O SRI IRABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
(BY SRI S M BABU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI MADHUSUDHAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOACATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
SRI RUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI GIRISH B. MANGANNAVAR FOR SRI B PRAMOD, ADVOCATES FOR R4; SRI D RAMDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
W.P.Nos.8715 & 8906/2010 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS, PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 02.03.2010 MADE IN APPLICATION NOS. 1218
AND 1228/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE R1 TO R3 TO ISSUE
THE ORDERS OF APPOINTMENT IN FAVOUR OF R4 AND R5) AND TO PERUSE THE SAME AND ETC.
IN WP Nos.10106/2010 & 12726-12763/2010 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDHAN R NAIK, SR.ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K., ADVOCATE)
-44-
AND:
1. B P NAVEEN AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O MR. PUTTASWAMI GOWDA
RESIDENT OF No.276/141, 9TH MAIN PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 040
2. HUSSAIN SAB
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING NEAR BIG WATER TANK BAGALKOT-587 101
3. MALLESHAPPA P. SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.32, NEAR KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 258, NEAR KALABYRAVESHWARA TEMPLE, THIMMANAHALLI, C N HALLI
TUMKUR 39. SRI. PRAKASH T M S/O MALATHESAIAH T N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT THORESURAGONDANAHALLI HULIYUR POST AND HOBLI ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D RAMDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5, R7-R11, 13,20,21,23-31 & 33-39; SRI J PRASHANTH FOR
M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R6, 14-16, 18,19,22 & 32; SRI SUBBA RAO, SR. ADVOCATE
A/W SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R12 AND R17)
W.P.Nos.10106/2010 & 12726-12763/2010 ARE FILED
UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.
1212 TO 1250/2010 AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DTD. 2.3.10 IN APPLICATION NOS.1212 TO 1250/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY
ALLOWING THESE WRIT PETITIONS AND ETC.
IN WP Nos.17294-17327/2010 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATH G R
S/O G K RANGACHARI, AGE: 38 YEARS
GOWDARAKAILI NEEJIGERE POST SAKLESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 134 WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE
CENTRAL
-50-
2. SURESH G M S/O MUDDERE GOWDA G K
AGE: 31 YEARS SRIDEVINILAYA, POST OFFICE ROAD HALAGUR, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 421 WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE CENTRAL
3. PRAVEEN N S
S/O SUGNYANA MURTHY, AGE: 30 YEARS
NO.84/2B, 5TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR MYSORE – 570 007 WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR
AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE CENTRAL 4. SHIVAKUMAR N
S/O K B MAHADEVAIAH, AGE: 36 YEARS NO.63, BELEGERE, NANJUNGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 129
WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE CENTRAL
5. C N KANNAN
S/O NANJAIAH M B, AGE: 36 YEARS
KARINANJAPURA LAYOUT SOMAVARPET POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ & DISTRICT.
6. YOGESH S/O C MAHADEVAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS NO.6531, BASAVAKRUPA, 16TH CROSS
NAGESHWARAN LAYOUT,NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE WEST 7. NANDISH S N
S/O NANJUNDAGOWDA S T , AGE: 38 YEARS SIDDANNAHALLI VILLAGE, S MADAMANGALA POST BANGALORE-563 114
WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE EAST
8. C THIPPESWAMY S/O B CHOWDAIAH, AGE: 33 YEARS NO.1537, 4TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD, 1ST FLOOR
REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA POST 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 040
-51-
WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE EAST
9. JAGADISH G
C/O D K KANNIMANNA, AGE: 31 YEARS
KANIVENILAYA, NO.189, MAHALAKSHMINAGAR BATAVADI, TUMKUR – 572 103 WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL
MANJUNATH NAGAR, BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI REUBEN JACOB ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI H SUBRAMANYA JOIS, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI RANGANATH S JOIS, ADVOCATE
FOR R4, 6-9, 11-15 [V/K NOT FILED V/O DTD.22.07.2010]; R5 AND R10 SERVED)
WP NOS.17294-17327/2010 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.5.2010 IN APPLICATION NOS.182 TO 185/2007 AND 187, 195, 197 TO 202/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NOS.17481/2010 & 17485-17490/2010
& 17723-17727/2010 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. M D SHARASH CHANDRA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O.K DEVARAJA HEGDE, NOW WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR O/O.REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, BANGALORE
(By SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI H SUBRAMANYA
JOIS, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI RANGANATH S JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, R6-R9, R11-R13 AND R15; R5, R10 & R14 - SERVED)
W.P.NOS.17481/2010 & 17485-17490/2010 & 17723-17727/2010 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS IN APPLICATIONS NOS.182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197-202/2007 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
-61-
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND HOLD THAT THE ORDER DT.25.5.10, MADE IN AFORESAID APPLICATION ON 25.5.10, VIDE ANN-A AS
ILLEGAL & THAT THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD & THAT THE ORDER IS MANIFESTTLY ILLEGAL
AND ETC.
IN WP NOS.19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TRANSPORT DEPARJTMENT M S BUDLING, BANGALORE – 560 001
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA M S BUIDLNIG, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D K, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. H G SOMASHEKARA AGED 37 YEARS S/O H A GANGEGOWDA
BEHIND T B SAKREPATNA 577 135 KADUR TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR
DISTRICT. 2. MARIILINGAPPA K S/O NINGAPPA K
AGED 39 YEARS,RAMAPURA POST KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT
3. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE K M SHIVARAM AGED 41 YEARS, DOOR NO.97, F KOLIDARA ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE
4. VEERABAHDRAPPA HARIHAR S/O GURUSHANATHAPPA H
AGED 39 YEARS, 3247, VEERESHKRUPA 11TH MAIN
2ND CROSS, MCC B BLOCK DAVNAGERE - 4
5. KUMARA H M, S/O MALIRANGAIAH AGED 42 YEARS, NO.18/64(1)
-62-
SUDARSHAN BADAVANE MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT
6. K YOGENDRA S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
NO.16, ESHWARA RAO COMPOUND 8TH MAIN, T DASARAHALLI NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE
7. ANANDA KUMAR B G, S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 34 YEARS, NO.64, I MAIN ROAD
PARVATHIPURAM, BANGALORE - 4 8. HAREESH B K, S/O C KODANDARAM
AGED 34 YEARS NO.29, 5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN KSRTC C/O J P NAGAR
2ND PHASE BANGALORE 9. ANAND K C, S/O CHADNRASHEKAR
AGED 34 YEARS NO.54/1, I ‘D’ CROSS
REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 040
10. K RAJESH, S/O K RAMESH SHET AGED 39 YEARS, DALVAJNA COMPOUND BTR ROAD, OPP. M.G.PARK
(By SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R13; SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU FOR M/S SRIDHAR PRABHU ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R14; SRI J PRASHANTH FOR M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R15, R16, R20, R21, R22, R25, R27, R29 TO R54 AND R56 TO R122; R1 TO R12, R17 TO R19, R23, R24, R26, R28 AND R55 ARE SERVED)
-75-
W.P.NOS.19401/2011 & 21520-21530/2011 ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NOS. 182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197 TO 202 OF 2007 DATED 25.5.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.5.2010 IN APPLICATION NOS.182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197 TO 202 OF 2007 DATED 25.5.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO.24525/2010 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
KAMBLE SATISHKUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SRI SHANKAR RESIDING AT NAGARAL CHIKKODI TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(By SRI NATARAJU B HALEMANE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE SECRETARY
THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, PARK HOUSE, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI MADHUSUDHAN R NAIK, SR. COUNSEL AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R3)
W.P.NO.24525/2010 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUAH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN
-76-
ALPPLICATION 2360/2008 DTD. 26.05.2010 VIDE ANNEX-J AND DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE SELECTION OF THE PETITIONER
UNDER RESERVE QUOTA FIXED FOR SCHEDULE CASTE CUM PROVISIONAL DISPLACED PERSON (SC/PDP) UNDER ANNEX-B AND ETC.
IN WP Nos.41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAKESH R, S/O RAJANNA B K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS KAMALAMMA KEMPANNA COMPOUND
VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD 4TH BLOCK, D B SANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURAM BANGALORE-560 097
(WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT K.R.PURAM BANGALORE)
2. SRI. HARSHA H P , S/O PRAKASH H E
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS C/O M PARAMESHWARAPPA MARUTHINILAYA, UNION COLONY
HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501 (WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT MANGALORE)
3. SRI. SANTHOSH SHETTY M K, S/O HARIYANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
MALEKABBINABYLE POST AND VILLAGE HULLUR, KUNDAPUR-578 229 (WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES
INSPECTOR AT ASST. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT HONNAVARA)
w4. SMT. PAVITHRA K, D/O LAKSHMAN PUJARI K AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BANGALORE COMPOUND
ULLANDI, PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 201 (WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR
AT REGIONAL OFFICE AT SHIMOGA) ... PETITIONERS (By SRI ABHINAV R FOR M/S KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVOCATES)
-77-
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PARK HOUSE, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING, DR. ABMEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001 4. SRI. H G SOMASHEKARA
S/O H A GANGEGOWDA BEHIND T B SAKREPATNA-577 135 KADUR TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
5. SRI. MARILINGAPPA K S/O NINGAPPA K AGED 35 YEARS
RAMAPURA POST KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT
6. SRI. VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE K M SHIVARAM
AGED 37 YEARS DOOR NO. 97, F KOLIDARA ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM
MYSORE 7. SRI. VEERABHADRAPPA HARIHAR
S/O GURUSHANTHAPPA H AGED 35 YEAS NO. 3247, VEERESHKRUPA
11TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS M C C , "B" BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-4
8. SRI. KUMARA H M S/O MALIRANGAIAH AGED 38 YEARS NO. 18/64(1) SUDARSHAN BADAVANE
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT
-78-
9. SRI. K YOGENDRA S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED 31 YEARS NO.16, ESHWAR RAO COMPOUND 8TH MAIN, T DASARAHALLI
NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE 10. SRI. ANANDA KUMAR B G
S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 30 YEARS NO.64, 1ST MAIN ROAD
PARVATHIPURAM BANGALORE-560 004
11. SRI. HAREESH B K S/O C KODANDARAM AGED 30 YEARS
NO.29, 5TH CROSS, 6TH "A" MAIN K S R T C C/O J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE
12. SRI. ANAND K C
S/O CHADNRASHEKAR AGED 30 YEARS NO.54/1, 1ST "D" CROSS
REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE BANGALORE-560 040
13. SRI. ARUN SURENDRA PATIL S/O SURENDRA S PATIL AGED 35 YEARS
C/O KUNTOJI BUILDING NEAR SANTABAI TEMPLE SAHU NAGAR, KAWALI GATE
BIJAPUR 14. SRI. SHASI KUMAR E
S/O P EKANANDA
AGED 31 YEARS NO.24, SRINIVASA NILAYA 2ND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN
(By SRI MADHUSUDHAN R NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI D.K. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R3; SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI H SUBRAMANYA
JOIS, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI RANGANATH S JOIS FOR M/S JOIS ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R4, 6 TO 9, 11, 12 & 14)
-79-
THIS W.P. Nos. 41905-41908/2010 & 6747-6758/2011 ARE FILED
UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN
APPLICATION NOs.182 TO 185, 187, 195, 197 TO 202/2007 AT ANNEX-A TO THE PRESENT W.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS AND
ETC.
IN W.P.NOS.908-911/2011 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. K V SUNDAR, S/O LATE VISWANATHA
AGED : 33 YEARS, R/A NO. 230, OPH ROAD
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 051 WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR IN K R PURAM, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, BANGALORE
2. IMTIYAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O AMEER PASHA
40. P PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT: NO. 258
NEAR KALABYARAVESHWARA TEMPLE THIMMANAHALLI, C N HALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT
41. PRAKASH T M S/O. MALATHESAIAH T N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT: THOSRESURAGONDANAHALLI HULIYUR POST & HOBLI DIST: TUMKUR ... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, SENIOR ADVOACATE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL A/W SRI RAVINDRA D.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NITYANANDA V NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI PRAKASH M
-88-
PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 AND R11; SRI SUBBARAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SATHEESH K.N.ADVOCATE FOR R11; SRI
SHANKAR N BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R28; SRI S.M.BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R4,R5, R14, R16,R17 & R22; SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R26; SRI H.
KANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R12; SRI J PRASHANTH, ADVOCTE FOR M/S RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES FOR R8, R9, R10, R13, R15, R18, R20, R21, R23 TO R 25, R27, R29 TO R41; SRI
D. RAMDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7, R9 TO R13, R15, R22, R23, R25 TO R33 & R35-41; SRI GIRISH B.M, ADVOCATE FOR R19)
W.P.NOS.103593/2014 & 103620-657/2014 ARE FILED
UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING THE CONNECTED WITH AND CONCERNING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND TO QUASH THE SAID ORDER AND PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 30.07.2014 FOR ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, H.G.RAMESH J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
H.G.RAMESH J. :
1. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.15002/2011 & 21131-
25. Assistant Director of Inspection Investigation vs.
A.B.Shanthi ((2002) 6 SCC 259)
26. State of Karnataka vs. K.Srinivasulu
(ILR 2003 KAR 4400)
27. Shri Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. vs. State of Bihar ((2003) 4 SCC 378)
28. Welfare Association vs. Ranjith P.Gohil
((2003) 9 SCC 358)
29. Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab ((2003) 9 SCC 401)
30. Engineering Kamgar Union vs. M/s. Electro Steels Castings Ltd.
((2004) 6 SCC 36)
31. Hindustan Lever vs. State of Maharastra ((2004) 9 SCC 438)
32. Umrao Singh vs. Punjabi University
((2005) 13 SCC 365)
-94-
33. Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
((2006) 4 SCC 1)
34. Ramegowda vs. The State of Karnataka (ILR 2006 KAR 632)
35. State of Kerala vs. Unni
((2007) 2 SCC 365)
36. Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd.
((2007) 6 SCC 236)
37. Union of India vs. Narendra Singh ((2008) 2 SCC 750)
38. Dhananjay Malik vs. State of Uttaranchal ((2008) 4 SCC 171)
39. Tridip Kumar Dingal vs. State of W.B
((2009) 1 SCC 768)
40. Bondu Ramaswamy vs. Bangalore Development Authority
((2010) 7 SCC 129)
41. M.S.Patil (DR.) vs. Gulbarga University ((2010) 10 SCC 63)
42. Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar
((2010) 12 SCC 576)
43. Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. Bangalore Development
Authority ((2011) 3 SCC 139)
44. K.K.Baskaran vs. State
((2011) 3 SCC 793)
45. Lalith Kumar Modi vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India
((2011) 10 SCC 106)
-95-
46. Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan
((2011) 12 SCC 85)
47. State of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd. ((2012) 7 SCC 106)
48. State of Gujrat vs. Arvind Kumar T.Tiwari
((2012) 9 SCC 545)
49. State of U.P vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi ((2013) 11 SCC 178)
50. Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer
((2013) 14 SCC 81)
51. Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chattisgarh
((2013) 14 SCC 494)
5. We have examined the matter in the light of the
above decisions relied on by the learned counsel and
proceed to answer the questions formulated above.
6. Re. question Nos.1 & 2: As stated above, the
Administrative Tribunal has set aside the Recruitment
Notification dtd. 18.08.2006 and also the appointments of
Motor Vehicles Inspectors made pursuant thereto on the
ground that the recruitment notification did not stipulate
one of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central
Government for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors under
sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act, 1988. It also relied on
-96-
the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Satyapal Reddy vs.
Govt. of A.P. [(1994) 4 SCC 391].
7. The controversy in these writ petitions is, whether
quashing of the appointments of Motor Vehicles Inspectors
by the Administrative Tribunal by its order dtd. 25th May
2010 on the aforesaid ground is correct in law.
8. The contention urged is that, notwithstanding the
qualifications prescribed by the Central Government in
exercise of the power under S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988,
the State has absolute freedom to prescribe qualifications
for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors in view of
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, whose subject
matter is relatable to Entry 41 in List II (State list) of
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution namely, State Public
Services. In view of the qualifications prescribed for the
post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors by the recruitment Rules
framed by Government of Karnataka in exercise of the
power under sub-sec.(1) of S.3 r/w S.8 of the Karnataka
State Civil Services Act, 1978, it was contended that the
minimum qualifications prescribed by the Central
-97-
Government for the said post in exercise of the power under
sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act, 1988 will not apply to
State of Karnataka.
9. It was also contended that Karnataka State Civil
Services Act, 1978, having had received the assent of the
President, has an overriding effect on S.213(4) of the
M.V.Act, 1988 and therefore, the qualifications prescribed
by the recruitment rules framed under the State Act would
override the qualifications prescribed by the Central
Government under S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988.
10. Satyapal Reddy’s case [(1994) 4 SCC 391] was
sought to be distinguished on the ground that it was
rendered in relation to the State of Andhra Pradesh, where
the rules prescribing the qualifications was made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and not under any
enactment. Whereas, in Karnataka, the rules prescribing
the qualifications are made in exercise of the power under
the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 which Act was
assented by the President. Hence, it was contended that
Satyapal Reddy (supra) has no application to this case and
-98-
the qualifications prescribed by the State will prevail over
the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government.
11. Before proceeding to examine the aforesaid
contentions, it is relevant to refer to the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government and also the
State Government. The Notification dtd. 19th June 1989
issued by the Central Government and published in the
Gazette of India dtd.19th June 1989, prescribing minimum
qualifications for the posts of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or
Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles reads as follows:—
“MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT
S.O.443(E).—(Dated June 19, 1989).—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(4) of Section 213 of the Motor
Vehicles, Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government hereby prescribes that the minimum qualification for the class of officers
consisting of the category of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles (by whatever names called) shall be as under:—
Qualification:
(1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X standard; and
(2) a diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 year course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering
awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 year course); and
(3) working experience of at least one year in a
reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted
with petrol and diesel engine; and
-99-
(4) must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy
passenger motor vehicles.
2. Nothing contained in the notification shall apply to an officer appointed to such post before the
first day of July, 1989 and to an officer appointed to discharge function of a non-technical nature.
3. This notification shall come into force on the first day of July, 1989.”
As could be seen from the above notification, it was
issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power
under S.213 (4) of the M.V.Act, 1988. It is relevant to refer
to sub-secs.(1) & (4) of S. 213 of the M.V.Act, 1988:
“Sec.213. Appointment of motor vehicles officers.—
(1) The State Government may, for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of the Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit.
…………………………………………………………………….
(4) The Central Government may, having
regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall
possess for being appointed as such.
………………………………………………………………………”
The qualifications prescribed by Government of
Karnataka for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors under
the Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles Branch)
(Recruitment) Rules, 1976, as amended by notification dtd.
-100-
24.11.2005 in exercise of the power conferred by the
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, are as follows:
“(1) Must be holder of diploma in Automobile
Engineering of not less than three years course or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education or other institution
recognized by the Government; (2) Must hold a current driving licence to drive motor
cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passengers motor vehicles; and (3) Must possess following minimum physical standards,
namely.—
……………………………………………………………………………….”
12. It is not in dispute that the qualifications stipulated in
the recruitment notification did not include one of the
minimum qualifications namely, work experience of one
year in a reputed automobile workshop, prescribed by the
Central Government by Notification dtd. 19th June 1989,
which came into effect from first day of July, 1989.
13. The contention that notwithstanding S.213(4) of the
M.V.Act, 1988, the State has absolute freedom to prescribe
qualifications for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors
because of enumeration of ‘State Public Services’ in Entry
41 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the
corresponding enactment of Karnataka State Civil Services
Act, 1978 cannot be accepted in view of the notification dtd.
-101-
19.06.1989 issued by the Central Government, prescribing
the minimum qualifications for the said post in exercise of
the power under sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act, 1988
and for the following reasons.
14. Sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act, 1988 may
incidentally encroach on the subject matter in Entry 41 of
List II namely, State Public Services, but it will not render
the sub-section unconstitutional in view of the doctrine of
pith and substance.
15. The doctrine of pith and substance means, if an
enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly
conferred by the Constitution upon the legislature enacting
it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it
incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another
legislature. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the
following observations made by a Five Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. F.N. Balsara (AIR
1951 SC 318):
“(8) …………………………………….. It is well settled that the validity of an Act is not affected if it incidentally
trenches on matters outside the authorised field, & therefore it is necessary to inquire in each case what
is the pith and substance of the Act impugned. If
-102-
the Act, when so viewed, substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred upon the Legislature
which enacted it, then it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters
which have been assigned to another legislature……………………………………………………”
The following observations made by a three Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in Prem Chand Jain vs. R.K.Chhabra
[(1984) 2 SCC 302] are also relevant:
“8. ………………………………………………………………
The legal position is well settled that the entries
incorporated in the lists covered by Schedule VII are
not powers of legislation but ‘fields’ of legislation.
(Harakchand v. Union of India4). In State of Bihar v.
Kameshwar5 this Court has indicated that such
entries are mere legislative heads and are of an
enabling character. This Court has clearly ruled that
the language of the entries should be given the
widest scope or amplitude. Navinchandra v. C.I.T.6
Each general word has been asked to be extended to
all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly
and reasonably be comprehended. (See State of
Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley7). It has also been held
by this Court in The Check Post Officer v. K.P.
Abdulla Bros.8 that an entry confers power upon the
legislature to legislate for matters ancillary or
incidental, including provision for avoiding the law.
As long as the legislation is within the permissible
field in pith and substance, objection would not be
entertained merely on the ground that while enacting
legislation, provision has been made for a matter
which though germane for the purpose for which
competent legislation is made it covers an aspect
beyond it. In a series of decisions this Court has
opined that if an enactment substantially falls within
the powers expressly conferred by the Constitution
upon the legislature enacting it, it cannot be held to
be invalid merely because it incidentally encroaches
on matters assigned to another legislature. (See
-103-
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy9; K.S.E.
Board v. Indian Aluminium Co.10; Subrahmanyam
Chettiar v. Mutuswami; Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v.
Bank of Commerce; Ganga Sugar Co. v. State of
U.P.). We, therefore, do not accept the submission
that the definition of university given in Section 2(f)
or the prohibition in Section 23 of the Act are ultra
vires the Parliament on the ground that such
provisions are beyond its legislative competence.
(4. AIR 1970 SC 1453,
5. AIR 1952 SC 252,
6. AIR
1955 SC 58, 7. AIR 1958 SC 560, 8. AIR 1971 SC
792, 9. AIR 1978 SC 215,
10. AIR 1976 SC 1031)”
16. When an impugned provision of law appears to touch
two different entries in two lists, then the Rule of Pith and
Substance helps in characterising the law as belonging to
this or that entry. Where the question for determination is
whether a particular law relates to a particular subject
mentioned in one list or the other, the Courts will look into
the substance of the enactment. Thus, if the substance of a
parliamentary enactment falls within the Concurrent List
(List III), then any incidental encroachment by it on any
matter in the State List (List II) would not make it invalid.
The fact of incidental encroachment does not affect the
vires of the law even as regards the area of encroachment.
The reason behind the rule of pith and substance is that, if
every legislation were to be declared invalid on the ground
-104-
of any incidental encroachment on any matter not reserved
to the said Legislature, then the power of each legislature
will be drastically circumscribed to deal effectively with the
subjects entrusted to it for legislation.
17. The subject matter of the M.V.Act, 1988 undoubtedly
falls under Entry 35 (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles …) of
List III (concurrent list) of Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. The subject of prescribing minimum
qualifications under S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988 for Motor
Vehicles Inspecting Officers, in pith and substance, also falls
under the aforesaid Entry as it is germane to the main
matter in the said Entry namely, ‘Mechanically Propelled
Vehicles’, though it incidentally touches upon the matter in
Entry 41 of List II namely, State public services. However,
this will not render sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act,
1988 unconstitutional in view of the rule of pith and
substance.
18. As Parliament had competence to enact S.213(4) of
the M.V.Act, 1988, the State has no power to prescribe
qualifications less than the qualifications prescribed by the
-105-
Central Government under S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988,
unless the State Law prescribing the qualifications has
received the assent of the President as laid down under
Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the assent being
subsequent to the enactment of the M.V.Act, 1988.
19. The contention that Karnataka State Civil Services
Act, 1978 overrides S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988, in view
of the Presidential assent to the Karnataka State Civil
Services Act, 1978 is devoid of substance. The President’s
assent to the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 was
not sought to overcome the effect of S.213(4) of the
M.V.Act, 1988 as the M.V.Act, 1988 was not even enacted
when the President gave his assent to the Karnataka State
Civil Services Act, 1978 on 12th July 1985. Hence, the
contention that the qualifications prescribed under the
Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles Branch)
(Recruitment) Rules, 1976 will override the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government by Notification dtd.
19th June 1989 issued in exercise of the power under
S.213(4) of the M.V.Act, 1988 cannot be accepted.
-106-
20. We may also state that sub-sec.(4A) of Section 5 of
the Boilers Act, 1923 is similar to sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of
the M.V.Act, 1988, whose subject matter of legislation is
also relatable to concurrent list - List III (Entry 37 –
Boilers). The said sub-sec.(4A) reads as follows:
“(4A) No person shall be appointed as the Chief
Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector or Inspector unless he possess such qualifications and experience as may
be prescribed by the Central Government.”
21. We will now refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Satyapal Reddy [(1994) 4 SCC 391]. The following
observations made therein are relevant:
“3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy and Shri Gururaja
Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that as the Act was made under Entry 35 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the
Constitution read with Article 246 of the Constitution, the Act receives paramountcy and
the Central Government alone is competent to prescribe the qualifications as to eligibility for
recruitment as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors and the power of the State Government to that
extent gets eclipsed and the prescription of qualification of Degree in Mechanical Engineering
becomes void since it runs in conflict with the qualifications prescribed by the Central
Government. Therefore, the State rules become inapplicable. In support thereof, it was further
contended that other State Governments had fallen in line in prescribing the qualification of
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering prescribed by the Central Government and the State Government of A.P. had not adopted that course.
-107-
Since the State rule is in conflict with the Central rule, the Central rule would prevail over the State
rules, by operation of Article 254 of the Constitution.
…………………………………………………………………………………
7. ………………………………………………………………………….
It is the State Government that operates the provisions of the Act through its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 213 gives power to the
State Government to create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it thinks fit. Sub-section
(4) thereof also preserves the power. By necessary implication, it also preserves the power to prescribe higher qualification for appointment of officers of the
State Government to man the Motor Vehicles Department. What was done by the Central
Government was only the prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving the field open to the State
Government concerned to prescribe if it finds necessary, higher qualifications. The Governor has been given power under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, subject to any law made by the State Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment
which includes prescription of qualifications for appointment to an office or post under the State. Since the Transport Department under the Act is
constituted by the State Government and the officers appointed to those posts belong to the State service,
while appointing its own officers, the State Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or conditions
of service. But while so prescribing, the State Government may accept the qualifications or
prescribe higher qualification but in no case
prescribe any qualification less than the
qualifications prescribed by the Central
Government under sub-section (4) of Section
213 of the Act. In the latter event, i.e., prescribing
lesser qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without colliding with each other. When the rules made by the Central Government under Section
213(4) and the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are construed
harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to
-108-
appoint fit persons to the posts or class of officers of the State Government vis-a-vis the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Act.
8. It is seen that A.P. Transport Subordinate
Service Rules have been made by the Governor
exercising the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and Rule 6 thereof prescribes the
qualifications as enumerated above. Graduation in Mechanical Engineering is one of the higher qualifications than Diploma. Since Section 213(4)
gives such power to the State Government by operation of Section 217 of the Act, the statutory
rules remain valid and operate in the field without colliding with the Central rules. Both the rules would operate harmoniously and effect can be given to
both the rules. Thus the question of inconsistency or repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution
does not arise. Therefore, we do not find that there is any conflict in the exercise of power by both
Central and State Governments or inconsistency in operation of the provisions of the statutory rules made by the Governor under proviso to Article 309
and the rules made by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the Act. The recruitment as
per State rules is valid and legal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
As could be seen from the above observations, the question
of law that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court
in Satyapal Reddy was whether the qualifications prescribed
by the Central Government will prevail over the
qualifications prescribed by the State Government. That
was negatived by the Supreme Court by holding that the
State Government may accept the qualifications prescribed
by the Central Government or prescribe higher qualifications
-109-
but in no case prescribe any qualification less than the
qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under
sub-sec.(4) of S.213 of the M.V.Act, 1988.
22. The contention urged in these petitions is that the
qualifications prescribed by Government of Karnataka will
prevail over the qualifications prescribed by the Central
Government. As could be seen from paras 13 to 19 above,
we have rejected this contention by examining the matter
on first principles as it was contended that Satyapal Reddy
(supra) will not apply to this case in view of Karnataka State
Civil Services Act, 1978.
23. Re.question No.3: The contention that the qualification
of work experience of one year in a reputed automobile
workshop prescribed by the Central Government is
impossible of compliance cannot be accepted. The
submission that there are no reputed workshops in
Karnataka is difficult to accept. No material is placed on the
record of the case to prove non-availability of work-shops
fulfilling the requirement prescribed by the Central
Government. Instead, as recorded by the Administrative
-110-
Tribunal in the impugned order at paras 27 & 28, the
requirement of experience was dispensed with by an
obscure process during drafting of the recruitment rules.
We also find from the Draft Rules notified by Government of
Karnataka as per the Notification dtd. 16.05.2011 proposing
to amend the Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles
Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1976, that work experience of
one year in a reputed automobile workshop is included as
one of the qualifications for the post of Motor Vehicles
Inspectors. The said draft Rules dtd. 16.05.2011 which is
published in the Karnataka Extraordinary Gazette dtd.
16.05.2011, to the extent it is relevant herein, is extracted
below:
Draft Rules “1. Title and Commencement :- These rules may be called
the Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011.
(2) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Amendment of Schedule:- In the schedule to the Karnataka General Services (Motor Vehicles Branch)
(Recruitment) Rules, 1976, in the category of post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors, in column 3, the following shall be
substituted, namely:- “For Direct Recruitment:-
(1) Must have passed S.S.L.C or possess equivalent qualification.
(2) Must be holder of a Diploma in Automobile Engineering of three years duration or a Diploma in
-111-
Mechanical Engineering (three years course) awarded by the State Board of Technical Education;
and (3) Must have working experience of not less than one
year in a reputed automobile workshop recognized by Government which undertakes repairs of both light and heavy motor vehicles, heavy goods and
passengers motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine.
Note: Reputed automobile workshop means workshop
employing not less than 10 persons and registered
as per labour laws.
(4) Must be holder of a current driving license to drive motorcycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles.
(5) Must possess the following minimum physical standards.
