Karnataka High Court
Sri P Balakrishna vs Union Of India By Secreary on 2 February, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.6659 OF 2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI P.BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE B.LINGAPPA,
AGED 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A.516, MAY FLOWER,
BRIGADE MILLENIUM,
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 78.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KIRAN S.JAWALI A/W
SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND
INSURANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING,
NO.87, M.G.ROAD, FORT,
MUMBAI 400 001.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING
NO.87, M G ROAD, FORT,
MUMBAI 400 004.
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
2
BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R1;
SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDER DATED 8.6.09 VIDE ANENX-A AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB-
INITIO; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION
OF THE ORDER DTD 8.6.09 VIDE ANEX-A OR ITS RELIANCE/
USAGE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner an employee of the second respondent-
Insurance Company is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the order dated 8.6.2009, a copy whereof is at
Annexure-A whereby sanction to prosecute him was accorded
by the third respondent-Deputy General Manager for the
offence punishable u/s 120B read with Sections 420, 468,
171 of Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable u/s
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988; after service of notice, the respondents
having entered appearance through their panel advocates,
oppose the Writ Petition making submission in justification of
the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
structured.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined
to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the identical
question of law in almost identical set of facts, the Apex Court
has answered in favour of the litigant and quashed a similar
order after considering the General Insurance (Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975; this was in
Crl.A.Nos.1872-1873/2014 between State of Karnataka, CBI,
ACB, Bangalore Vs. K.T.Uthappa and another, decided on
3.11.2015; learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Kiran Javali appearing for
the petitioner has placed a typed copy of this judgment and
the same is acted upon on his assurance that, it is the true &
correct copy of the judgment.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds;
a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of
sanction; consequences ensue accordingly.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
