The Assistant Executive Engineer ... vs Yakub S/O Awalsab Nadaf
2021 Latest Caselaw 5483 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                        PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
                          AND
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

           WRIT APPEAL NO.200126/2021 (L-ID)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
       AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
       SUB-DIVISION NO.4, JAMAKHANDI,
       AT JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

2.     MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY,
       AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
       KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU.
                                         ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

YAKUB S/O AWALSAB NADAF
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC. NIL,
R/O SONAL POST ALAGOOR,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101.
                                         ....RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED)
                              2




    THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 203441 /2019 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED
05.09.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.203441/2019 AND
CONSEUENTLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR
AND ETC.

      THIS   APPEAL COMING ON       FOR   HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORHEARING ON INTERLOCUTOR APPLICATION
THIS DAY, R. DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

This writ appeal is filed at the hands of the

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board,

being aggrieved of the dismissal of writ petition

NO.203441/2019, which was also filed by the

appellants herein.

2. The learned Single Judge noticed the fact

that earlier writ petition No.80700/2011 was filed by

the appellants herein challenging the very same

judgment and award dated 12.04.2010, whereby the

oral termination order dated 31.12.2001 was set aside

and the workman was directed to be reinstated

without backwages. The said writ petition was

dismissed for default on 24.11.2011. Therefore, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the second writ

petition filed at the hands of the appellants herein on

the ground that the same is hit by the principles of

res-judicata and sufficient cause is not shown for the

inordinate delay in filing writ petition.

3. After arguing for some time, learned

counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants

may be permitted to be withdraw this writ appeal and

writ petition No.203441/2019, with liberty to file an

application seeking to recall the order of dismissal for

default dated 24.11.2011.

4. Since we are of the prima facie opinion that

the learned Single Judge was right in holding that

second writ petition could not have been maintained

on the same cause of action, we accept the

submission of learned counsel and permit withdrawal

of this writ appeal and second writ petition

No.203441/2019. The cost of Rs.2,000/- imposed by

the learned Single Judge is made easy.

Consequently, this writ appeal and writ petition

No.203441/2019, is permitted to be withdrawn by the

appellants and liberty is granted to file an application

seeking recall of the order dated 24.11.2011.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of the disposal of appeal, pending

interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

msr