Mr. Sharath. B vs The Central Administrative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1805 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1805 Kant
Judgement Date : 22 March, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Sharath. B vs The Central Administrative ... on 22 March, 2021

Author: Satish Chandra Shetty

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                          PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                            AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

           WRIT PETITION NO.5559/2021 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

MR. SHARATH. B
S/O SRI BHEEMAIAH,
C/O SRI B.N. BALAJEE,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.415,
SANKALP MAGNUM, 3RD STAGE,
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
OPP. PRERANA MOTORS,
VISVESHWAWRA NAGARA,
MYSURU-570 008.

                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIKAS UPADHYAY, ADV. FOR
    SRI.GOURAV K., ADV.)


AND:

1.     THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
       1ST AND 2ND FLOOR,
       SRI.VISHVESHWARAYA KENDRIYA BHAVAN,
       DOMLUR,
       BENGALURU-560071.

2.     UNION OF INDIA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY,
       MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
                                2




      NORTH BLOCK, POLICE -1 DIVISION
      (IPC-SECTION),
      NEW DELHI 110001.

3.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT,
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      BENGALURU-560001.

4.    THE UNDER SECRETARY TO
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
      DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
      ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (SERVICES-4)
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      BENGALURU-560001.

5.    MRS ROHINI SINDOORI
      W/O SUDHIR REDDY,
      AGED MAJOR,
      R/AT DOOR NO.B42,
      5TH CROSS, KALIAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
      KALAHSTI NAGAR, T.DASARAHALLI,
      BENGALURU-560057.
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI.S.R.KAMALACHARAN, AGA FOR R1, 3 and 4
    SRI.C.SHASHIKANTHA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R2)



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF   THE   CONSTITUTION   OF   INDIA   PRAYING     TO   ISSUE   AN
APPROPRIATE   WRIT   OF   CERTIORARI    OR   ANY    OTHER   WRIT
DIRECTING THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
TO PASS THE ORDER/JUDGMENT RESERVED IN O.A.NO.444 OF 2020
WITHIN 7 DAYS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 22/12/2021
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.



      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 3




                            ORDER

Office objections in the matter are over ruled.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance

of appropriate direction directing the Central Administrative

Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru,

to pass order in OA No.444/2020 within seven days.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the

out set, argued before this Court that the petitioner who is an

Officer of the Indian Administrative Service being aggrieved by

the Transfer Order dated 28.09.2020 has preferred an Original

Application challenging his Transfer Order and the matter was

heard finally and reserved on 22.12.2020. His contention is

that the order in original application has not been delivered so

far. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 105

of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993

and the same is reproduced as under:

"Pronouncement of order.--

(a) The Bench shall as possible pronounce the order immediately after the hearing is concluded.

(b) When the order are reserved, the date for pronouncement not later than 3 weeks shall be fixed.

The date so fixed shall not be changed except due notice to all parties/counsel.

(c) Reading of the operative portion of the order in the open court shall be deemed to be pronouncement of the order.

(d) Any order reserved by a Circuit Bench of the Tribunal may be pronounced at the principal place of sitting of the Bench in one of the aforesaid modes as exigencies of the situation require."

4. He has stated that as the matter has been reserved

for orders, a judgment should have been pronounced within

three weeks. However, the same has not been done.

5. After hearing learned AGA appearing for

respondents No.1,3 and 4 and Sri C.Shashikantha, learned

Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent

No.2-Union of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the present writ petition deserves to be disposed of.

6. Resultantly, the Tribunal is requested to decide the

matter as expeditiously as possible within a time framework as

provided under Rule 105 of the CAT Rules, 1993. As in the

present case time period provided under the Rules is already