Sri. Biligiri Education Society ... vs S. Ramesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 390 Kant

                           1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.21374 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. BILIGIRI EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD).
   BILIGIRI FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
   YELANDUR-571441.
   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT,
   SRI. BILIGIRI EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD).
   BILIGIRI FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
   YELANDUR-571441.
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S N BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. B G VIJAYAKUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

S. RAMESH,
S/O SIDDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PAVADASHETTY STREE,T
MADHUVANAHALLI,
KOLLEGAL TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571439.
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH N D, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN EX.PETITION
NO.81/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2019
PASSED BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR IN EX.PETITION NO.81/2015 VIDE ANNX-
F AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                               2

                       ORDER

Petitioners being the judgment debtors in Execution

Petition No.81/2015 are knocking at the doors of writ

court for assailing the order dated 15.03.2019, a copy

whereof is at Annexure-F, whereby the learned Principal

District Judge, Chamarajanagar has directed attachment

of their properties for coercing implementation of his

original side order as affirmed by this court in the earlier

round of litigation.

2. After service of notice, respondent Decree Holder

having entered appearance through his counsel resist the

writ petition making submission in justification of the

impugned order and the reasons on which it is structured.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

inclined to grant conditional indulgence in the matter and

for the following reasons:

(a) The respondent had filed appeal in EAT

No.1/2012 which came to be disposed off in his favour vide

order dated 22.08.2014 wherein the petitioners were

directed to recommend his name for admission to the

salary under the Grant-In-Aid; this was put in challenge

by the petitioners in W.P.No.32320-32321/2015 (Edn-Res)

which came to be disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2017 specifically

stating that the recommendation should be made

expeditiously; even then the recommendation was not

made.

(b) The order of the EAT as confirmed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as mentioned above

having not been complied with, the respondent employee

filed Execution No.81/2015 for enforcing the same;

however, after notice in his execution petition, petitioners

JDrs have complied with the said orders, although this

was apparently with enormous delay; that being the

position, learned Judge of the Court below could not have

directed attachment of the properties, and

(c) The delay in not implementing the order of the

EAT and writ of this court cannot go with impunity; the

vehement contention of the counsel for the petitioners that

no specific period had been stipulated in the said orders is

a poor justification for brooking delay; it is a settled

position of law that where period is not prescribed by the

Court for compliance of it's orders, ordinarily it should be

implemented within one month, and in any circumstance

within a reasonable period; going by this yardstick it

cannot be said that there is no delay in implementing the

orders in question and therefore this culpable lapse on the

part of the petitioners has to be visited with exemplary

costs, notwithstanding the grant of substantive relief.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition

succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the

impugned order and the execution proceedings as well;

petitioners together shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (twenty

five thousand) only to the respondent-employee within a

period of four weeks and to report compliance to the

Registrar General of this court in writing within next one

week, failing which the impugned order now set at naught

shall resurrect on its own as phoenix.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/