K Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6954 Kant

                                  1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

              REVIEW PETITION NO.366 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

K. VENKATESH
S/O KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT SUBBARAYANAPET
NANDI ROAD
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
NOW R/AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS
MUTHAMMA LAYOUT
VIJINAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 016
                                                 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA.M, ADVPCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE - 560 001

2.   THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL
     ADMINISTRATIVE IN KARNATAKA
     VISHWESWARAIAH VEEDHI
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
     CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101
                                 2


4.   THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
     DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
     CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101

5.   THE COMMISSIONER
     MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     CHINTAMANI - 563 125
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA)

      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W
ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER IN W.P. NO.926/2019 DATED 28/09/2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION                                                 AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court under Order 47 Rule 1

of CPC praying to review the order dated 28.09.2021 passed in

W.P.No.926/2019, whereby the petitioner's prayer for a direction

to consider the representation dated 27.11.2006 is rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Muniyappa M, for petitioner and

learned AGA Smt.M.C.Nagashree for respondents. Perused the

review petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ

petitioner was working as Junior Engineer in Chinthamani

Municipality and was transferred to Vijayapura Municipality by

order dated 29.09.2004, which was cancelled subsequently by

order dated 26.11.2004. Immediately on cancellation of the

transfer order, the petitioner approached 5th respondent with

duty report which was not accepted.

4. The writ petition was dismissed as no mandamus could be

issued to consider petitioner's representation when the

petitioner's request for taking back to duty was rejected under

endorsement dated 30.09.2006. The said endorsement was also

published in newspaper during 2006 itself. From the 2006 till

the year 2019, the petitioner slept over his right.

5. The review of an order could be entertained only if the

petitioner is able to satisfy the conditions laid down under Order

47 Rule 1 of CPC. The petitioner has not pointed out any error

apparent on the face of the record in the order passed to

entertain the review. Accordingly, the review petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Prs*